Good news for well intentioned vandals

[syciprider]

Your legal precedent is here:

Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.


Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.

The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.

But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.

During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.

The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed – the point at issue was the motive.

The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.

The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.

The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.

During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a "proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.

Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and embraced the clean energy future for Britain."

He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."

Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...aw-925561.html

They should build a completely new coal fired station to replace the damged one instead

[Joe Gress]

[JonathanD]

[Metal Matt]

Awesome.

[mike_v_s]

This is great news. My trial is coming up and I'm gonna ask my lawyer to claim that my spray painting "Lisa XXXXXXXX is a diseased whore" on the side of her car was a public service announcement.

Mike

[Trevorus]

Originally Posted by JonathanD

Sweet....if its true.

This is a dangerous viewpoint... This gives legal precedent to terrorism if they can prove that they had some greater goal in mind. This is about the dumbest ruling I have heard of.

[Synplicity]

woo! Maidstone!

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Trevorus

This is a dangerous viewpoint... This gives legal precedent to terrorism if they can prove that they had some greater goal in mind. This is about the dumbest ruling I have heard of.

What exactly do you think military action is besides "terrorism with a greater goal in mind?" What exactly is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist besides which side you're on? Is it the training? The funding? The state-sponsorship?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were terrorists, but they had a greater goal in mind.

Having said that, this is a ridiculous story. Good for the activists, bad for the coal company.

[thefruitfarmer]

Originally Posted by Synplicity

woo! Maidstone!

Just near me too!!

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

What exactly do you think military action is besides "terrorism with a greater goal in mind?" What exactly is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist besides which side you're on? Is it the training? The funding? The state-sponsorship?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were terrorists, but they had a greater goal in mind.

Geneva Conventions. A state sponsored military action will (generally) try to follow the guidelines set forth with respect to international humanitarian law. Civilians/medical personnel, etc are not targeted.

The founding fathers are routinely referred to as terrorists, but I think there is a large step between revolutionaries (of all shades) and our generally accepted definition of "terrorists".

My two cents, anyway.

Mike

[Trevorus]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

What exactly do you think military action is besides "terrorism with a greater goal in mind?" What exactly is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist besides which side you're on? Is it the training? The funding? The state-sponsorship?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were terrorists, but they had a greater goal in mind.

Having said that, this is a ridiculous story. Good for the activists, bad for the coal company.

So, how far do you take this? Can I blow up building because I think that I have a higher purpose in mind? So was the Uni bomber justified?

[DigMe]

Wow...that could be one really slippery slope.

bc

[Trevorus]

BTW, terrorists destroy people of a dissenting opinion, usually a religious cause. They target civilian targets and usually go for maximum destruction. A perfect example is a thread by a TB'er from India. There were 5 or 6 bombs that went off in his city, and it was for what purpose? For extremists to prove a point. Same as this.

[Thunderscreech]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

This is great news. My trial is coming up and I'm gonna ask my lawyer to claim that my spray painting "Lisa XXXXXXXX is a diseased whore" on the side of her car was a public service announcement.

Mike

If she has venereal diseases, it is important to the public health. you ought to get an award of some sort.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Trevorus

So, how far do you take this? Can I blow up building because I think that I have a higher purpose in mind? So was the Uni bomber justified?

We (as in our military) do it all the time. What makes the Unibomber crazy but the Commander-In-Chief sane? Public Opinion? 500 years ago Public Opinion said that the Earth was flat. I don't know if the Unibomber was justified--I've never spent the time researching his beliefs. All I'll say is that killing is killing, whether for duty, profit, or fun, we don't get a green light simply because we think of ourselves as the good guys...

As for terrorists going after maximum impact, have you heard of Shock And Awe? Our military, hell, every military goes for maximum impact. What about bombing Nagasaki? We'd already bombed Hiroshima...


mike_v_s made a good point as to the difference between revolutionaries and terrorists, but I'm simply trying to illustrate how subjective these terms are, not condoning any sort of violence.

[HollowBassman]

I think I'm going to have to just quit the internet. I'd probably be much happier not really knowing how nutty some people are.

[Thunderscreech]

[Spector_Ray]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

What exactly do you think military action is besides "terrorism with a greater goal in mind?" What exactly is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist besides which side you're on? Is it the training? The funding? The state-sponsorship?

Remember, the Founding Fathers were terrorists, but they had a greater goal in mind.

Having said that, this is a ridiculous story. Good for the activists, bad for the coal company.

Are you serious?

[Ericman197]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

We (as in our military) do it all the time. What makes the Unibomber crazy but the Commander-In-Chief sane? Public Opinion? 500 years ago Public Opinion said that the Earth was flat. I don't know if the Unibomber was justified--I've never spent the time researching his beliefs. All I'll say is that killing is killing, whether for duty, profit, or fun, we don't get a green light simply because we think of ourselves as the good guys...

I'm not saying I support Dubya, but look at this guy:



Also, people did not think the world was flat 500 years ago, that's an urban legend

[Spector_Ray]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

We (as in our military) do it all the time. What makes the Unibomber crazy but the Commander-In-Chief sane? Public Opinion? 500 years ago Public Opinion said that the Earth was flat. I don't know if the Unibomber was justified--I've never spent the time researching his beliefs. All I'll say is that killing is killing, whether for duty, profit, or fun, we don't get a green light simply because we think of ourselves as the good guys...

As for terrorists going after maximum impact, have you heard of Shock And Awe? Our military, hell, every military goes for maximum impact. What about bombing Nagasaki? We'd already bombed Hiroshima...


mike_v_s made a good point as to the difference between revolutionaries and terrorists, but I'm simply trying to illustrate how subjective these terms are, not condoning any sort of violence.

I think you need to go back and do some serious research before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.