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

tinyurl.com/63ndlv

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.

Oy vey!
If I were a Brit I’d go destroy the juror’s cars and claim that I was just preventing them from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.

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.

Oy vey!
If I were a Brit I’d go destroy the juror’s cars and claim that I was just preventing them from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.

I suppose you probably would.

a.) I was being sarcastic.

b.) If you excuse lawlessness you can hardly claim the protection of the law for yourself.

After this case, what’s next? Acquitting activists for destroying an SUV dealership?
Not that I wouldn’t sympathise – I’ve often wished for an antitank missile when some jerk in a Hummer comes roaring down the street, forcing me back to the kerb even though I have the “Walk” signal.

Sort of a mild example of John Brown’s descent into terrorism in his quest to end slavery.

Breaking the law, even an evil law, should be done with considerable restraint, and the person doing it should be prepared to accept the consequences.

This does little to advance the stated goals of Greenpeace.

Like the song says “John Brown’s body lies mouldering in the grave.” He may have been right, but he wasn’t above the law.

Sustainability isn’t about freezing in the dark. We must meet the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations. Tearing down a power plant does nothing to curb energy demand. For 35,000 quid, they could have raided a town of all its incandescent lighting and replaced it with compact florescent lamps. In the end, it would have done more to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere.

Nohome

All this verdict does is embolden the “Militant Environmental Activists” (I want to use another term but I do not think it would be allowed) to commit more egregious acts.

This is a perfect example of the law and unintended consequences. It has a rather benign law that said it was okayto destroy property to prevent a greater damage. This was meant to cover, for example, a fireman who breaks down the door and destroys furniture while putting out a house fire. It would seem to be fairly easy for the British Parliament to fix this bill but it may be political untenable to do so now.

Like the song says “John Brown’s body lies mouldering in the grave.” He may have been right, but he wasn’t above the law.

My point, exactly. His truth persists, but fortunately, his planned war didn’t materialize.

Sustainability isn’t about freezing in the dark. We must meet the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations.

Of course. Sustainability is a major concern.

Tearing down a power plant does nothing to curb energy demand. For 35,000 quid, they could have raided a town of all its incandescent lighting and replaced it with compact florescent lamps. In the end, it would have done more to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere.

Maybe so. BTW, the next generation of LCDs will probably relegate the CFLs to the dustbin. Cooler, cheaper to run, and long-lasting. And they won’t be a mercury hazard.

I think you mean LEDs, but you are correct. I work at a university and I’ve seen first hand what will be available in about 5 years. They still haven’t perfected the spectrum of these lamps, but that is just a matter of time.

Nohome

I cannot believe this verdict! This opens the door for a whole lot of vandalism and marauding in the name of “green”. Any nutjob can claim to be
"green", and a lot of them do.

It opens the door to a lot worse acts of violence by the left.

Perhaps the Greenpeace activists would now like to try the same thing with some Chinese coal-fired power plants.

Eco-terrorists: 1
Public safety: 0
Common sense: -100.

Folks interested in this issue should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and look at the posts there.

Totally non-political but shows how the data being used to justify man-made global warming is fraudulent and how the computer models have serious problems.

Visit the site.

Come on Al. Don’t you know it is us “deniers” that are making it political just because we dare to challenge the left and their people controlling fanaticism? :rolleyes::cool:

Folks interested in this issue should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and look at the posts there.

Totally non-political

Yeah, and so were the democratic and republican conventions. :rolleyes:

What this verdict shows is a dangerous disconnect between business and the mass of people in the society. And that is related to the slow erosion of the British Middle class.

The middle class has been shrinking in the US also. We are a couple of decades from that, unless things change. If income is skewed into a distribution with more and more poor, with relatively few wealthy, the only thing that averts disaster is a large number of people in the middle.

What are you talking about???

I’m talking about evidence from various sources regarding AGW … Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming … discussing both sides of the discussion … i.e., whether it is really happening or not. And whether such things as Arctic ice is growing or not. Whether the temperature increase is real or not. Whether the temperature data is legitimate or not. Whether the computer models are reliable or not.

What are you talking about … income skewing??? Which has what to do with the “threat of global warming justifying breaking the law” …???

What are you talking about???

The highly politicized nature of the site you linked.

I’m talking about evidence from various sources regarding AGW … Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming … discussing both sides of the discussion … i.e., whether it is really happening or not.

There really isn’t much point in denying it any longer. As you know, many prominent deniers have concluded that it’s a fact.

And whether such things as Arctic ice is growing or not.

Depends on where it is. According to the models (which have been pretty good so far) it should be growing in the center of continental glaciers, and shrinking along the coasts. Which is what we are seeing.

Whether the temperature increase is real or not.

Most deniers now admit that’s a fact. They just think Mars or more cities or something is doing it.

What are you talking about …

The political skewing of the verdict. The destruction of the middle class is at the root of the issue that produced the verdict.

Which has what to do with the “threat of global warming justifying breaking the law” …???

The polarization of society into rich and poor.

www.climatechangedebate.org is about the least politicized site that there is … for goodness sake.

Well … maybe www.surfacestations.org is less politicized.

But www.climatechangedebate.org is not politicized … except for one fellow who is so far to the left that he … well, nevermind.

Interested folks should visit www.climatechangedebate.org and see for themselves.

OR, they could visit www.sepp.org

or … www.junkscience.com

or www.oism.org

They aren’t politicized either.

But www.climatechangedebate.org is as neutral a site as is humanly possible.

I’d also add wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Anthony Watts is the one who handles the surfacestations.org site.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.