The environment is now a legal defence for criminal damage
Discussion
Sorry if this is a repost
So now saving the planet is a defence for committing criminal damage?
What next?
vandalising cars is OK too?
Soap dodger trashes your P&J but gets off as Al Gore's adviser will turn up and convince the jury that you were doing the planet a favour?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/...
So now saving the planet is a defence for committing criminal damage?
What next?
vandalising cars is OK too?
Soap dodger trashes your P&J but gets off as Al Gore's adviser will turn up and convince the jury that you were doing the planet a favour?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/...
this is the problem. Hopefully they'll appeal and the verdict will be reversed. TankRizzo said:
That one with the pigtails. I would.
Probably doesn't wash and has too much body hair, though.
Awesome diddy ride potential Probably doesn't wash and has too much body hair, though.
As for the case. Shows just what a sham our legal system is.
Is it equivalent to say if I caught a hippy vandalising my car I was justified in breaking their legs and fingers to prevent them damaging property elsewhere in the world?
?That is insane!
i know that it is going to be difficult to get a full and complete picture from a newspaper website, but from that account it seems like the whole trial was a farce! their "experts" talking about climate change were 2 government advisors and someone from greenland presumably brought in for an emotional plea!
as i understand it, the whole point of a jury is to provide an impartial decision from members of the public as to whether an individual has comitted the crime they have been accused of. surely, the decision of whether the excuse given falls inside or outside of the bounds of the law is something that only someone with a good legal training can make?
i know that it is going to be difficult to get a full and complete picture from a newspaper website, but from that account it seems like the whole trial was a farce! their "experts" talking about climate change were 2 government advisors and someone from greenland presumably brought in for an emotional plea!
as i understand it, the whole point of a jury is to provide an impartial decision from members of the public as to whether an individual has comitted the crime they have been accused of. surely, the decision of whether the excuse given falls inside or outside of the bounds of the law is something that only someone with a good legal training can make?
Right hang on with me here.
Chavs,
They breed like blinking rabbits in many cases.
The most damaging thing anyone can do to the future of the Planet in terms of environmental damage (if they don’t have access to a nuke or toxic waste processing plant, etc) is have a child. Look at the ‘environmental footprint’ of a pair of ‘greenies’ with a couple of kids verses that of a pair of DINKYs with 4 cars.
Therefore I take it it is now legal to cull Chavs in the name of protecting the environment from immediate damage.
Anyone got a spare MAC10 and free next weekend?
Chavs,
They breed like blinking rabbits in many cases.
The most damaging thing anyone can do to the future of the Planet in terms of environmental damage (if they don’t have access to a nuke or toxic waste processing plant, etc) is have a child. Look at the ‘environmental footprint’ of a pair of ‘greenies’ with a couple of kids verses that of a pair of DINKYs with 4 cars.
Therefore I take it it is now legal to cull Chavs in the name of protecting the environment from immediate damage.
Anyone got a spare MAC10 and free next weekend?
Don't Greenpeace et al understand that unfortunately we NEED the energy provided by power stations etc? I'm sure they went home, put the lights on, put the kettle on for a cuppa, got milk out of the fridge, sat down in front of the TV to watch the news reports of their case etc.
And 'its cuz of da enviro-ment, innit' should NOT be a defence to criminal damage and trespassing. On that basis, I'm off to burn every Pious I can find and I'll expect to be acquitted when caught.
And 'its cuz of da enviro-ment, innit' should NOT be a defence to criminal damage and trespassing. On that basis, I'm off to burn every Pious I can find and I'll expect to be acquitted when caught.
rude-boy said:
Right hang on with me here.
Chavs,
They breed like blinking rabbits in many cases.
The most damaging thing anyone can do to the future of the Planet in terms of environmental damage (if they don’t have access to a nuke or toxic waste processing plant, etc) is have a child. Look at the ‘environmental footprint’ of a pair of ‘greenies’ with a couple of kids verses that of a pair of DINKYs with 4 cars.
Therefore I take it it is now legal to cull Chavs in the name of protecting the environment from immediate damage.
Anyone got a spare MAC10 and free next weekend?
you would probably get a reward from Crimestoppers too!Chavs,
They breed like blinking rabbits in many cases.
The most damaging thing anyone can do to the future of the Planet in terms of environmental damage (if they don’t have access to a nuke or toxic waste processing plant, etc) is have a child. Look at the ‘environmental footprint’ of a pair of ‘greenies’ with a couple of kids verses that of a pair of DINKYs with 4 cars.
Therefore I take it it is now legal to cull Chavs in the name of protecting the environment from immediate damage.
Anyone got a spare MAC10 and free next weekend?
Grauniad said:
In his summing-up at the end of an eight-day trial, the judge, David Caddick, said the case centred on whether or not the protesters had a lawful excuse for their actions. He told the jury that for this defence to be used it had to be proved that the action was due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to another.
Surely the verdict is not sustainable on appeal? Where is the 'immediate need'? I won't say the judge failed to properly direct the jury here, because I don't know, but it really doesn't sound like "good law" to sanction the interpretation of "immediate" as meaning (even if you subscribe to the MMCC malarky) tens or scores of years. That said, I would generally never make assumptions about a judgment on the basis of a media report - they're rarely on the ball, so I won't start now.
However, what I really fail to understand about these irritating funts is that if they were really serious about reducing Co2 emissions, why do they waste their time petitioning in a country with zero world influence and only 2% of global Co2 emissions?
Edited by Stuismyname on Friday 12th September 11:30
Stuismyname said:
Grauniad said:
In his summing-up at the end of an eight-day trial, the judge, David Caddick, said the case centred on whether or not the protesters had a lawful excuse for their actions. He told the jury that for this defence to be used it had to be proved that the action was due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to another.
Surely the verdict is not sustainable on appeal? Where is the 'immediate need'? I won't say the judge failed to properly direct the jury here, because I don't know, but it really doesn't sound like "good law" to sanction the interpretation of "immediate" as meaning (even if you subscribe to the MMCC malarky) tens or scores of years. That said, I would generally never make assumptions about a judgment on the basis of a media report - they're rarely on the ball, so I won't start now.
However, what I really fail to understand about these irritating funts is that if they were really serious about reducing Co2 emissions, why do they waste their time petitioning in a country with zero world influence and only 2% of global Co2 emissions?
Edited by Stuismyname on Friday 12th September 11:30
k RIGHT OFF!! at the very least.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff