Harry's Place

This a depressing development. Huge (and useless) ‘wind farms’ are lining the high tops of some of Britain’s formerly wild landscapes because we have abdicated responsibility for long term policy to people who seemingly believe the best way to wash clothes is to bash them against a rock in a river.

I blame The Archers.

An unbelievable verdict. They even admitted casuing the damage. There’s footage of them doing it. As there was also footage on the TV last night of them stomping all over a field in 1999, stuffing GM crops into bags. Someone else’s field. Someone else’s crops.

Isn’t there somewhat of a precedent for this in the Trident Ploughshares case(s)?

In any case, there are many good reasons for not allowing new coal fired power plants, at least ones without carbon capture & storage (CCS). While the rest of the world is investing in renewables and CCS, and worrying about energy security, we’re building new coal and nuclear plants. It’s not great is it.

Here are the defendants. Do any of them possess cars?

Will Rose is A keen musician, he plays drums, guitar and various other instruments and is a member of several bands.

I don’t think he’s cycling around with his drum kit.

Total insanity. This way is madness….Like a bad dream. The cockroaches are in control of the light switches…….and they’ll
all be going out soon…..Absolutely beyond belief, beyond words….so I’ll stop, except to say that with news of this inanity I need an extra long pull on my rum bottle……

Incidentally, on the “formerly wild places” bit about wind turbines, I did read an interesting thing the other day about off shore wind farms being good for the marine environment because trawlers can’t fish in them, so they basically form sort of marine reserves where the sea bed and fish can recover from overfishing.

I hope the first people to be forcible sterilized by these “eco-warriors” are the children of that f**kin jury.

Expect more of the same until and unless they bring in minimum IQ requirements for juries.

“My peers” my arse.

Kevin Drake is 44 and lives in a Wiltshire village with his wife and daughter. He is a freelance industrial rope access safety supervisor

At last I know where to go for all my industrial rope access safety supervision needs.

Haven’t all sorts of protestors successfully used ‘lawful excuse’ as a defence for criminal damage?

It’s got nothing to do with the merits of their argument but is all about their personal sincerity about it.

I cannot comment on this without sounding like Ian Hislop. And I already look a bit like him…

I like wind turbines, architecturally: although I do understand that they’re not brilliants efficient at producing energy.

Apparently, they kill birds. I don’t see how.

“Apparently, they kill birds. I don’t see how.”

It’s probably those enormous metal propellors that go round and round in the air. One clip from them and it’s bye bye birdie.

And I agree, they are quite beautiful to look at. In fact, like pylons they’ve done a lot to make the countryside more interesting.

Yes, but they go round very very slowly.

Surely birds are used to things in the air that move around. Like branches of trees, for example.

This lot definitely frist up against the wall come the revolution comdrades.

The NUM were actually right about needing a dviersity of power supply.

p.s. Only Kevin has, what my mother would call, a ‘proper job’.

Apparently, they kill birds. I don’t see how.

They killed birds in one instance a long time ago in California, when a whole load of fast-rotating small turbines where situated directly in a migration path.

Today’s big beasties move too slowly, and are situated too sensibly, for this to be considered a serious problem any more.

There is a lot of nonsense spouted on the bird-killing issue, unfortunately.

If the justice system refuses to punish vandalism then it is hard to see why those at risk of being targeted by Greenpeace aren’t entitled to take the law into their own hands in order to protect themselves. Kind of like the French did with the Rainbow Warrior.

Well, birds are very, very stupid. I suppose that explains it.

Off subject, but talking of pylons: http://www.pylons.org

“it is hard to see why those at risk of being targeted by Greenpeace aren’t entitled to take the law into their own hands in order to protect themselves. Kind of like the French did with the Rainbow Warrior.”

This is the point that I wanted to make, but was being inept about. I’ll update the point.

Tim Hewke is by far my favourite defendant. Tim is “in his forties and has worked for Greenpeace for thirteen years as a researcher. He lives in Harrietsham, Kent and enjoys wining and dining, photography, growing his own veggies and country pursuits”. None of this is remotely objectionable other than the use of the word “veggies”, which Greenpeace evidently felt compelled to use in order to be annoying.

Yes, that Pylon site is excellent.

“Incidentally, on the “formerly wild places” bit about wind turbines, I did read an interesting thing the other day about off shore wind farms being good for the marine environment because trawlers can’t fish in them, so they basically form sort of marine reserves where the sea bed and fish can recover from overfishing.” – Short order cook.

Long ago felons were hung from trees. A return to capital punishment would be a bizarre way of encouraging people to plant trees.

The energy produced by wind turbines has disappointed everyone apart from the proponents and their clients, land owners, who include the cash strapped Duke of Northumberland.

I find the name ‘Tim’ for a grown man to be more annoying than ‘veggies’.

They had a Greenpeace festival here in Norfolk last weekend. I can’t tell you how glad I was when it pissed it down. Mind you, they like a bit of mud, don’t they?

“Kind of like the French did with the Rainbow Warrior.”

I dare you to go to New Zealand and say that.

Birds are killed due to the pressure differences at the leading and trailing edge of the blade. Essentially even if the don’t get hit by the actual blade, flying past them has the impact similar to rapid decompression and their insides get sucked to their outsides (not nice). The BBC did a story on how they are killing bats – themselves a protected species. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7581990.stm)

Criminal Damage Now Legal Of course it doesn’t mean that, which as a lawyer you well know. There is a long history of juries finding lawful excuse in such situations. I await the usual bezerkers advocating prosecuting the jury for returning a verdict they disagree with.

“Essentially even if the don’t get hit by the actual blade, flying past them has the impact similar to rapid decompression and their insides get sucked to their outsides (not nice).”

Phew. Well, I suppose it’s lucky that they’re only birds.

The energy produced by wind turbines has disappointed everyone apart from the proponents and their clients, land owners, who include the cash strapped Duke of Northumberland.

And the Danes, who produce 20% of their energy from it.

It is hard to see why those at risk of being targeted by Greenpeace aren’t entitled to take the law into their own hands in order to protect themselves. Kind of like the French did with the Rainbow Warrior

Only if they wish to end up with a life sentence.

“Apparently, they kill birds. I don’t see how.”

I for one look forward to the day when the Scottish Eagle appreciation society start blowing up turbines in the name of eagle protection.

I wonder what the moral position of Greenpeace would be if someone did pour iron filings in the engines of the cars of their leading representative – in the interest of the environment, of course.

“The energy produced by wind turbines has disappointed everyone apart from the proponents and their clients, land owners, who include the cash strapped Duke of Northumberland.
And the Danes, who produce 20% of their energy from it.” – Short order cook.

Denmark is a small flat country of unremarkable scenery (I recently drove through it) with a very small population. I live in England.

Tim Rice, Tim Curry. What is it about the name Tim that suggests Indian food. Barbara Windsor, Barbara Castle. What is it about the name Barbara that suggests Windsor Castle?

Denmark is a small flat country of unremarkable scenery (I recently drove through it) with a very small population. I live in England.

Does wind not turn turbine blades in England then?

“There is a long history of juries finding lawful excuse in such situations”

That is true. This is more about PR than the law. There’s no guarantee that another jury would bring in the same verdict

Nevertheless, rhetorically, they’ve managed to legitimise vigilantism.

The only good Tim was the great Timothy Lumsden who at least had the decency to use his full name.

Oh, and the utterly wonderful Tiny Tim. Of Tiptoe Through The Tulips fame.

“It is hard to see why those at risk of being targeted by Greenpeace aren’t entitled to take the law into their own hands in order to protect themselves. Kind of like the French did with the Rainbow Warrior
Only if they wish to end up with a life sentence.”

Both French agents were released after serving only short terms, having spent their “incarceration” at a base on a French possession in the Pacific. New Zealand was blackmailed by the French over EU trade matters in broad daylight in front of the ‘ever grateful for NZ’s wartime gallantry’ British. What ever I think of Greenpeace, that stays with me.

I have added an ice penis to this story

Eloi 1 Morlocks 0.

What Greenpeace has achieved today is the legalisation of vigilantism – David T

That’s a bit over the top, David. The ‘lawful excuse’ defence has been around an awful long time, and has been used successfully in the past in similar fact cases. And in any case, no legal precident has been set.

Sure, in theory, anyone can damage anyone else’s property and claim ‘lawful excuse’, but in reality they are not going to convince a jury except in exceptional cases, generally those where the ‘victim’ of the crime is government or big business.

I would agree with you that the jury essentially came to a political decision, but politics underpins the law anyway – it just isn’t so visible most of the time. Where the law is out of step with public opinion, juries will try to find ways of arriving at what they see as a just decision, using any legal loophole they can.

What Greenpeace has achieved today is the legalisation of vigilantism – David T

That’s a bit over the top, David. The ‘lawful excuse’ defence has been around an awful long time, and has been used successfully in the past in similar fact cases. And in any case, no legal precident has been set.

Sure, in theory, anyone can damage anyone else’s property and claim ‘lawful excuse’, but in reality they are not going to convince a jury except in exceptional cases, generally those where the ‘victim’ of the crime is government or big business.

I would agree with you that the jury essentially came to a political decision, but politics underpins the law anyway – it just isn’t so visible most of the time. Where the law is out of step with public opinion, juries will try to find ways of arriving at what they see as a just decision, using any legal loophole they can.

Larkers re Rainbow Warrior – too right, mate.

What also was galling was that the French agents were totally inept – landing at remote beaches where a stranger would be remembered for months, posing as a honeymoon couple but never looking at each other or touching each other.

There was a lot of Francophobia in the country after that.

Which is all well and good, when you’re sympathetic to the political campaign being waged through criminal damage.

But, obviously, you’d be unimpressed if (say) a jury acquitted an arsonist who burned down a half way house for early release convicts, using a similar ‘preventing damage to property’ rationale.

Predictably, Jesus H Hundal is cock-a-hoop over this.

Now I have an excuse to vandalise all their shit and any car I take a fancy too as well. Like I needed one, making it legal will take all the fun out of it.

Reminds me of that ancient Freak Brothers strip where if enough people find something offensive the law gets it knickers all in a twist. Can we prosecute Judges for bringing the Law into disrepute? Is this not yet another case of job-building by these vile legal-eagle bastards?

But, obviously, you’d be unimpressed if (say) a jury acquitted an arsonist who burned down a half way house for early release convicts, using a similar ‘preventing damage to property’ rationale

Yes, a jury could do that, but given the serious threat to life and limb that defence would be highly unlikely succeed.

Might do, if there was a very strong feeling about siting a hostel for criminals in a residential area.

Imagine that the hostel was empty but waiting for its first occupant, and the hostel was detatched. Imagine that instead of burning it down, they just smashed all its windows.

You get the point.

Which is all well and good, when you’re sympathetic to the political campaign being waged through criminal damage. But, obviously, you’d be unimpressed if (say) a jury acquitted an arsonist who burned down a half way house for early release convicts, using a similar ‘preventing damage to property’ rationale. – David T

Obviously so, but where are you going with this? An end to jury trials? Or are you suggesting that politics should play no part in the law? Is this possible?

Sure, judges could refuse to allow the defence of ‘lawful excuse’, which given that Greenpeace admits the act in this particular case, a guilty verdict would automatically ensue.

But where does that leave the passer-by who breaks a shop window to steal a ladder he needs to rescue a child hanging out of the window of a burning house?

I don’t really want to get into ‘the moral maze’ here – it’s an endless debate, but I hope you see my point

What Greenpeace has achieved today is the legalisation of vigilantism.

Shock, horror, etc. When did HP start sounding like the Daily Mail?

Nevermind cars, all those Greenpeace dudes and dudettes produce CO2 with their lungs and mouths. It is now legal to prevent them from doing so.

(Come to think of it the Rainbow Warrior was probably not carbon neutral. The DGSE was ahead of its time really.)

When did HP start sounding like the Daily Mail?

This happened when the Daily Mail offered a £1000 prize for the first flight across the channel and it was won by M Bleriot who set out from a small French town near Calais- thus providing a rare example of the Mail actually paying for foriegn citizens to arrive in the UK from Sangatte.

What are we actually talking about? Oh dear Arthur Scargill won’t like this at all.

Although come to think of it it may have been the Express which offered the prize.

Might do, if there was a very strong feeling about siting a hostel for criminals in a residential area

David T – yes I do get your point, I just don’t see why you are making it. The potential for juries to return idiosyncratic verdicts has always existed. And unless we changed the law to make ‘lawful excuse’ no longer a defence in criminal damage cases, there is nothing we can do about it.

“where does that leave the passer-by who breaks a shop window to steal a ladder he needs to rescue a child hanging out of the window of a burning house? ”

That is precisely what the defence of lawful excuse is there for.

Nobody can stop juries coming to odd decisions, or ought to attempt to do so. I have huge respect for the jury system, and my personal experience of serving on a jury boosted my faith in it.

What I am suggesting, however, is that campaigning organisations shouldn’t attempt to encourage juries to assist them in making political statements, by committing damage to property, and then shoehorning a political statement into a defence that is supposed to deal with “burning house” type cases.

What Greenpeace should have done, frankly, is to plead guilty, and explain why they did what they did. Or, better still, not to shut down power stations at all.

In effect, Greenpeace ran a defence that encourages campaigning organisations to damage other people’s property in order to make a political point.
You can cheer that on if you happen to support Greenpeace’s aims. But you’ll have difficulty in opposing it, consistently, when violence and criminal damage is carried out by those who are campaigning for something which you oppose strongly.

In effect, Greenpeace ran a defence that encourages campaigning organisations to damage other people’s property in order to make a political point. You can cheer that on if you happen to support Greenpeace’s aims. But you’ll have difficulty in opposing it, consistently, when violence and criminal damage is carried out by those who are campaigning for something which you oppose strongly

Which is a fair point. But just because someone claims ‘lawful excuse’ does not mean that a jury will buy it. I don’t really see this as any different from claiming lawful self defence. Just because one jury may acquit a householder whom kills a burglar doesn’t make it open season on all burglars.

‘Apparently, they kill birds. I don’t see how.’

If they’re pheasants, it’s all too easy to see how. The phrase ‘bird brain’ may be avianist, but these animals really are as thick as shit mixed with glue. They haven’t got the brainpower to move out of the way of a car 300 metres away (travelling at 30mph) on a country road, so I can see them just blithely flying into a turbine’s blades.

No, indeed.

And jury decisions such as this do not set formal legal precedents. Although, in theory, there might be an Attorney General’s Reference on the proper limits of the ‘lawful excuse’ defence, and when a judge ought to permit such a defence to go to a jury.

What I’m objecting to is this campaigning strategy.

What they’ve shown is that there’s a reasonable prospect of acquittal if you play the global warming card.

But likewise, there are other prejudices which not-so-nice campaigning organisations could play on, in similar court cases. Immigrants. Sex offenders. Speed cameras.

As a strategy, this sucks.

I feel lucky that a lot of HP posters, in this thread, don’t get the chance to serve on juries!

good luck to Greenpeace :)

Love the ’scary’ headline by the way:

“Criminal Damage Now Legal”

Well, of course it isn’t, but there you go. Let’s face it, HP just doesn’t like those environmentalist types, that’s what this is about.

Don’t you think that story about the ‘cockberg’ is a load of balls?

I have heard through a friend that a guy at his work that an activist for Greenpeace got the top of his finger lopped off — he was training to scale an oil rig. Yes they actually have training for that!

Modernity, so you support this bizarre decision because support Greenpeace. But the precedent has been set. You can now damage property for political causes.

How would you feel if Migration Watch activists damaged a new migration housing centre chimney, and the jury (Daily Mail readers, you see) let off the perpetrators after being lectured by an expert of immigration – thus ‘proving’ that immigration is bad and detrimental to this country?

You either support the principle of having lawful excuse in damaging property, in the name of a controversial view point, or you don’t. Presumably you do?

I’m going to cancel my donation to Greenpeace over this. The danger with the way ecopolitics is presented is that it will give nutters an excuse to carry out violent acts, in the same way that animal rights criminals have been doing. I think a reasonable response is to put pressure on Greenpeace to campaign in a more responsible and democratic way.

I can’t help but feel this show trial was a bit like something straight out of an episode of the rather excellent Boston Legal

What Greenpeace should have done, frankly, is to plead guilty, and explain why they did what they did. – David T

That’s very principled of you Mr T, but I imagine that the people who were actually in the dock and do support the cause didn’t want to go to jail.

You suggest that their strategy “sucks” because it “legalises vigilantism”. Well, in truth it neither sucks – they won! – nor does it legalise anything that was not already legal.

This verdict changes nothing so far as the ‘lawful excuse’ defence goes. Unsavoury organisations that ‘break the law’ already had this defence open to them.

Whather it is successful or not in the future depends on how public opinion (as expressed through random selection of juries) views the particular cause the defendants are promoting. In that sense, the Greenpeace verdict changes little.

You could have put the case against juries being allowed to consider ‘lawful excuse’, but you choose not to. Instead, you blame Greenpeace for taking advantage of the only legal defence they had! Well, if you going to rely on defendants to volunteer for a bit of bird, when they have better options available, your pleas are going to fall on deaf ears.

Mind you, they’re certainly passionate these Greenpeace guys. Come on you harumphers, grumbling into your gin and tonics, when was the last time you felt passionate enough about anything to make a protest?

Does Greenpeace know that some coal-burning plants, thanks to new technologies, are very clean and virtually non-polluting?

What Greenpeace has achieved today is the legalisation of vigilantism.

Couldn’t agree more.

And like the other ‘co-religionists’ of the enviromental movement, they invoke a ‘higher law’, the sacrosanct penal code of global warming purity, and insist it take precedence over lower, secular law.

They’re on a mission to evangelise the world green and to smite the enemies of Gaia

And people are worried about Sarah Palin.

Commenter ‘Bishop Hill’ at Pickled Politics is getting ideas already.
He is pontificating if lawful excuse will apply to the beating up of a climate change denier.

But likewise, there are other prejudices which not-so-nice campaigning organisations could play on, in similar court cases. Immigrants. Sex offenders. Speed cameras

I think the point you are missing is that the ‘criminal damage’ in this case amounted to writing a slogan on a chimney, which doesn’t quite measure up to the burning down of a homeless hostel or the smashing of an immigrant’s windows or the painting of slogans on a sex offenders house that may incite violence against him. I can’t see how writing a slogan measures up to any of those. I suspect that the motives of the jury may have been that they thought the prosecution was OTT and were resolved to give the CPS a good kicking.

He is pontificating if lawful excuse will apply to the beating up of a climate change denier

I suggest he puts his experiment into action and then we’ll be spared any further posts from him for a good few months.

Come on you harumphers, grumbling into your gin and tonics, when was the last time you felt passionate enough about anything to make a protest?

March 2006. And the time before that was a Free Nelson Mandela protest, so I’m guessing it was a while back. I’m due another in about 2022, but I’ll probably make up some excuse or other and avoid it.

David T

Spot on.

Could a civil action be be bought against the defendants by the power company?

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/how-to-enforce-your-rights/civil-action-and-judicial-review/civil-action.html

cheers
andy

Playful young birds may well play ‘dodge the blade’ games, with unfotunate results. Also, buzzards circle very slowly. This may be an optical illusion.

Oh I went to a protest about the proposed demolition of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy’s_Wharf

a few weeks ago. Not that I feel passionate about it – I’m not at all sure I wouldn’t rather have the riverside access frankly.

I was pleased when the four women were acquitted for breaking into Bae Warton in ‘96 and disabling the hawk aircraft that were going to be exported to Indonesia for use in east timor. Daubing slogans on powerstations is setting the bar a bit too low imo.

Zin

It is very tempting to support violence and criminal damage in support of causes you favour. I am sympathetic to – for example – women who damage hawk aircrafts destined for use in East Timor.

However, we don’t live in a police state. There are many many ways that Greenpeace can get its message across about the iniquity of coal fired power stations, which don’t involve vigilantism. As such there is hardly a defence here of necessity, is there?

What you’re saying, in effect, is that law is political, and that the rule of law is therefore illusory.

I appreciate that this is what Communists believe, but you can see why a liberal might oppose it?

I cannot believe this judgement! In effect, the poster is right. This judgement creates a legal space for criminal damage. I could go and smash the windows of the MOD and claim that I was trying to prevent the destruction of Afghan property…
Or attack a farmer for damaging the Earth. This is the disintergration of our legal system and the law, happening beneath our noses!

David T

I haven’t even remotely implied that I support either Greenpeace or the tactics they employ, and my personal view on the matter has no bearing on the legal principles we are discussing.

You think that Greenpeace should have made their point in other ways. Fine. However, they didn’t, and the jury accepted their defence – a defence which is available to anyone else who damages property for a political cause.

So what’s changed?

You continue: What you’re saying, in effect, is that law is political, and that the rule of law is therefore illusory. I appreciate that this is what Communists believe, but you can see why a liberal might oppose it?

Unless your self-proclaimed liberalism is a religion, surely you believe or disbelieve something because of the evidence?

I think that Greenpeace have chosen to make a rhetorical point by running a defence of “climate change necessity”, which was – in effect – a win-win strategy for them. Either they get to grandstand in court, or they get off.

I suppose my objection is primarily to the causing of damage to property, and secondarily, to running what really ought to have been considered a fanciful defence: that they HAD to shut a power station down, to prevent global warming.

Now, I don’t object to yer average defendant having a bash at running the best defence they can. However, these are not average defendants. They are, largely, employees of a campaigning organisation, which has taken the decision to damage property belonging to others, and then run this defence.

As things stand, they could not object, in principle, to my smashing all Greenpeace’s windows in, on the basis that I was doing my best to ensure that they’d have less money to spend on shutting down coal fired power stations.

I might be convicted. I might be acquitted. On balance, I won’t take the chance.

But, ideally, political arguments ought not to be conducted by violence, or defended by shoehorning a political argument into a legal defence.

Short Cook: read carefully in this report (half-way down the page):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm

Denmark only gets 9% of its energy from wind.

On the question of birds being killed by turbines, apart from bats, there was this ‘irrelevant’ little local difficult up in Norway, a harbinger of things to come in the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rspb-warning-as-wind-turbines-kill-sea-eagles-524866.html

That wasn’t “one bird long ago in California”, Mark T. Nor was it “faster turbines of long ago”. It’s modern, big, ’slow’ turbines slicing eagles to pieces.

But then, Short Cook has got it all worked out already: nuclear bad, wind good. How lovely to have a simple mind.

It seems very odd that energy policy should be decided by a jury. This “protect property” excuse is a bit of a farce. Is this the go-ahead for nuclear? When I was a lad, Greenpeace was against that. I’m getting old and confused. I suppose the answer is that these people all live in benders and use bicycle-operated washing machines.

Will they now go over to China to complete the exercise? I bloody well hope so. This soggy excuse for a summer is getting me down big time, and as for those “ice penises”… >8¬0

It’s you that has the simplistic mind. That report says that Denmark exports 50% of its wind power, so overall it does produce 20%. Now Denmark, as pointed out before, is a small country with very similar climatic conditions around the country. If it’s windy in one part of Denmark, it’s windy everywhere. Britain is completely different to this. “Exporting” wind power, in British terms, would be exporting to the South East when it’s windy in Wales, or exporting to Scotland when it’s windy in Norfolk.

The nuclear power thing was related to energy security, which is a major concern at the moment. Britain has abundant resources of wind, tidal and other renewable power, but not of uranium. I don’t think nuclear is bad per se, it’s just that relying on nuclear when we don’t have any uranium is silly. Also, we’ve largely lost the expertise we had in nuclear power, which means we’d need to buy it from the French, and I don’t think anyone wants that.

This is absurd. If they disagree with an entirely legal decision – as far as I can see, this station is no more illegal than unused nuclear weapons – by all means, take action. Just expect some repercussions! Is there any question of a civil action being taken against them?

I find the name ‘Tim’ for a grown man to be more annoying than ‘veggies’.

What about a Tim who grows his own veggies?

I dare you to go to New Zealand and say that.

Pouring iron filings into their cars is closer to the mark, but liberty and all that…

That wasn’t “one bird long ago in California”, Mark T. Nor was it “faster turbines of long ago”. It’s modern, big, ’slow’ turbines slicing eagles to pieces.

Oh dear.

I suppose it was a bit too much to expect an informed analysis from someone who posts as Turbines Kill (why not capital letters with an explanation mark? really get your point across).

I never claimed ‘just one bird’ had been killed – please reread my post. I was referring to the only major documented instance of ‘mass’ killing of birds.

Contemporary wind turbines kill, on average, fewer birds over the course of their lifespan than the average car – regardless of whatever hysterical conclusions you wish to extrapolate from from one Independent article.

(And what S.O.C. said).

If they’re pheasants, it’s all too easy to see how. The phrase ‘bird brain’ may be avianist, but these animals really are as thick as shit mixed with glue. They haven’t got the brainpower to move out of the way of a car 300 metres away (travelling at 30mph) on a country road, so I can see them just blithely flying into a turbine’s blades.

Not if they’re fat buzzards. A new clump has been proposed near my home, 91 metres ground to tip. I don’t know the propeller length precisely, and therefore how low it’ll reach, but surely they ain’t that high flyers?

Denmark does not produce 20% of its power from windpower. It has an installed capacity of 20% that rarely if ever is reaced, wind intensity is inappropriate for large epriods of the time when the installed capacity produces little if any power.

The reason that DEnmark exports power is simply because it sometimes cannot use the power being generated. The wind has a habit of not coinciding with demand. Norway exchanges power with Denmark as a means of balancing loads.

Building large windpower installations is insane. A small contribution to national power consumption of 5-10% may be useful. Beyond that you need standby power that can be run up quickly to balance demand (Nuclear is sensible, but probably have to be fossil in the UK)

Surely the only defence to criminal damage would be “self-defence” or “defence of one’s own property”? How is defending “property around the world” a defence? If “property around the world” extends to their own properties, how did they show their “firm belief in their properties’ facing immediate danger”?

Surely something went wrong here in the instructions given by the Judge to the jury?

The reason that DEnmark exports power is simply because it sometimes cannot use the power being generated.

Why is this a problem if the countries the power is being exported to are less windy than Denmark?

I mean, why should Denmark cut back on the power it is generating from wind if that power is still being used, albeit by other countries?

I find this lawful excuse thing fascinating. So it would be OK to torch my neighbour’s giant Nissan X-Trail to prevent it continuing to assist climate change?

Can anyone cite a few previous high-profile cases like this — especially where the defendants got away with it.

PS: I wonder if Greenpeace nobbled that jury. They don’t have any respect for the law, after all.

He told the jury that for a lawful excuse to be used it must be proved that the action was due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to another.

So where was the immediate need then?

“Yes, but they go round very very slowly”

Not at all. They go around very very fast. They are much larger than you think, and the tips move at a huge speed.

They are a complete lunacy. An utter waste of money and they ruin beautiful landscapes. If anyone should be sterlised it’s the morons who designed, licensed and built them. That would edge the mean IQ of this country up by quite a bit.

One last point. It’s not the property (planet) that needs protecting. The old tart Gaia is OK with whatever climate. It’s organic life that has the problem.

“When I was a lad, Greenpeace was against that. I’m getting old and confused”

I think it’s not you but Greenpeace that is confused. They started off with sensible people and sensible policies, but now they are just demented. Not as demented, though, as the judge who did not direct the jury to disregard those idiotic ‘defences’.

giant Nissan X-Trail
The x-Trail israther small, it’s a girly SUV ’softroader’ for girls called ‘Sharron’ and men called ‘Tim’. Big would be a Cruiser 200 Series (Amazon in the UK), giant would be a Ford F250.

As things stand, they could not object, in principle, to my smashing all Greenpeace’s windows in, on the basis that I was doing my best to ensure that they’d have less money to spend on shutting down coal fired power stations

The proportionate analogy would be painting a slogan on the walls of Greenpeace’s offices.

I might be convicted. I might be acquitted. On balance, I won’t take the chance

I’d be happy to wager £100 that you’d be convicted if you broke their windows.

But, ideally, political arguments ought not to be conducted by violence, or defended by shoehorning a political argument into a legal defence

I think you are absurdly over-reacting to this case. Not that I have any particular time for the Greens, many of whom I find to be sanctimonious and authoritarian, but you are allowing your parti pris to completely overwhelm your judgement.

Not as demented, though, as the judge who did not direct the jury to disregard those idiotic ‘defences’

He is not allowed to. It is a statutory defence and the defendants have a perfect right to deploy it. Perhaps the jury just thought that the CPS were being profligate cunts. They are so often, these days.

I find this lawful excuse thing fascinating. So it would be OK to torch my neighbour’s giant Nissan X-Trail to prevent it continuing to assist climate change?

Well the common law right of self defence would permit you to kill your neighbour if you could get a jury to accept that killing him was a proportionate response. Not very likely is it.

XofTheX, likelihood of conviction ain’t what’s worrying me the most. What is is the prospect of fruitloops tagging along with the Green (and, I am distinguishing them from environmentalists) who’ll take it to the next level.

For much of the late 1990s, until the Admiral Duncan bombing, such rightists were the main terrorist threat in Great Britain; and continued to be so until 11/9. What next? One of those scroats lays a booby-trap which injures or maims? Oh, they’ll be convicted, which will make the victims feel so much better.

XofTheX, likelihood of conviction ain’t what’s worrying me the most. What is is the prospect of fruitloops tagging along with the Green (and, I am distinguishing them from environmentalists) who’ll take it to the next level

A slogan was daubed on a chimney. The ‘next level’ might be daubing it on a car, perhaps. I think it would have to escalate through quite a few ‘levels’ before I would get worried about a threat to life & limb.

For much of the late 1990s, until the Admiral Duncan bombing, such rightists were the main terrorist threat in Great Britain; and continued to be so until 11/9. What next? One of those scroats lays a booby-trap which injures or maims? Oh, they’ll be convicted, which will make the victims feel so much better

Huh? This acquittal for criminal damage makes you think that Nazis might start engaging in violent acts of terror? That’s a pretty forced connection! I think a more likely scenario might be that animal rights groups commit acts of vandalism in order to stop ‘animal torture’ and claim lawful excuse for doing so.

I fail to see how this acquittal will make any difference to the character of political protest as she is practised in this country. Such acquittals have happened in the past and there wasn’t a sea-change then so I don’t why there should be one now.

Can I shoot one of these guys (all in the interests of a higher cause and all) and not be guilty of murder? Oh, sorry, I forgot the Brits are now down to the level of worrying about knives. Pretty soon they will be worrying about spoon attacks. Blackstone must be rolling over in his grave. I am glad my grandparents took that boat.

X, please go back and read what I wrote. I was not suggesting this particular bunch of muppets have it in them to commit acts of violence. I said there are, on the periphery of the Greens or animal rights, individuals there to express their inner violence. It is they who, even when criminal damage was criminal damage was criminal damage, were vandalizing property and threatening employees and their families and, yes, laying explosive devices.

Besides, a booby-trap could simply be a piece of direct action, which an irresponsible ‘activist’ who thinks it’s all a computer game in which he or she acts as a para-muppitary without consequence, causes serious injury or death. Slashes car tyres and causes a fatal crash; drives pegs into trees about to be felled, and a lumberjack gets one through the skull.

“Oh, sorry, I forgot the Brits are now down to the level of worrying about knives”

CleVER!

OT: does anyone know where the Funnye, you don’t look Jewish thread is? Thanks.

Just another chapter in the book on the stupidity of juries. I’d love to see their faces when someone pointed out that they’d just voted to allow random vandals to destroy their cars.