Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Heathrow 13, a group of green anti-flight activists who were convicted of cutting the perimeter fence and disrupting flight operations, at one of the busiest airports in the world, will not face jail – unless they do it again.
According to The Guardian;
Six women and seven men have avoided jail for trespassing at Heathrow, following a protest against the possible expansion of the airport.
The activists, dubbed the Heathrow 13, were given sentences of six weeks suspended for 12 months, meaning they would not have to go to prison immediately.
They had been found guilty in January of aggravated trespass and entering a security-restricted area of an aerodrome. They had been warned by district judge Deborah Wright to expect a custodial sentence.
…
A loud cheer went up as the defendants left the dock. Outside the court, one of them, Danielle Paffard, said: “I’m so relieved. It’s a triumph for democracy, a triumph for the movement.” She said that while the sentence meant she was banned from Heathrow for a year, others would continue protesting against the third runway.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/24/heathrow-13-climate-change-protesters-avoid-jail
This ridiculously light sentence seems a continuation of Britain’s developing tradition of extraordinary leniency towards green protestors. Greenpeace protestors who were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to a British coal station in 2008, were found not guilty – the court accepted their climate defence.
What sort of message does this leniency send to investors, if their British investments might attract attention from green groups?
Britain desperately needs to attract more investment into their creaking energy infrastructure. Many British airports, roads and railways also need substantial upgrades. But green fanatics oppose any form of investment which might lead to increased CO2 emissions.
Even if investors are prepared to brave Britain’s notoriously fickle, high risk energy policy landscape, will they also be prepared to face unconstrained green activism? How can investors be confident the law will protect their property, when green fanatics believe they won’t be punished, even if they cause substantial criminal damage?
Worse, this apparent green license to flout the law potentially weakens Britain’s security. Imagine a terrorist breaking into Heathrow, or even a nuclear reactor, to conduct reconnaissance for an attack; if they are caught, perhaps all they have to do is claim to be a green activist, to avoid a custodial sentence.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is no such thing as Justice in the UK. There is, like Australia, New Zealand and teh US, a legal system. I would guess there was someone in that group who is wealthy or who has wealthy connections or has powerful political connections.
I’m not sure if John McDonnell can be classed as a powerful political connection but he is certainly on their side and he is Shadow Chancellor … 🙂
Just curious, did you omit Canada because of a perception that justice is actually available there? ‘:-)
Justice? Hell, there ain’t no justice, just procedure,. Only in Canada, eh?
Here you can burn down and loot a major part of a city (Baltimore) with impunity, but if you occupy some almost empty Federal facility in the boondocks you get shot. Depends if you are for liberty or looting.
+1
I wonder if Al Gore and all the jet-setting climate scientists support these people. I don’t: I’m a Brit living in Mexico, and jet planes are wonderful!
Shame the knuckleheads are not being sued by the folks who’s time was wasted by the selfish act.
Where are all these Rainbow Warriors when they’re really needed to stop their hypocritical gas guzzlers?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/love_boat/
Look up Jon Moylan – forgery (of major bank stationery, at that) fraud and a number of Stockmarket offences. Then check out his sentence.
Slightly better reaction from a judge in the North East: 8 Friends of the Earth activists disrupted operations at Banks’ Shotton coal mine near Cramlington and were found guilty of aggravated trespass at Bedlington Magistrates Court on 16 December.
The eight pleaded guilty and received a criminal conviction for aggravated trespass and a fine of approx. £1,000 each, made up of £150 court costs and £850 towards Banks losses. They were given a 12-month conditional discharge and were given a court order not to go within 50m of a Banks site.
All of the protestors come from London. FoE have offered no explanation as to why none of their North East members were involved in the action.
The protest was supposedly aimed at Matt Ridley whose estate trust receives royalties from the mine operators.
The barrister appearing for the accused argued mitigating circumstances on the basis that it was a legitimate protest and that the protesters were frustrated by the lack of UK Government action to combat climate change. The District Judge presiding did not appear to be impressed by this argument and suggested that it was not appropriate for matters of national politics to be argued by way of illegal obstruction of legitimate coal mining operations in Northumberland.
A further protest member has pleaded not guilty. He is still on police bail and is due to appear in court again for trial in March.
Maybe a few Brits should knock down a few wind turbines, dynamite would do it, and claim that they are saving the birds from being chopped up and see what happens in the courts. Would be interesting.
A massachusetts D.A. refused to prosecute two clowns who blocked a goal ship when they claimed they were concerned about climate change
This documentary covered a group called “Just Plane Stupid.” The nitwits seem to think the laws don’t apply to them…and they seem to be right.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=49m56s
It is a disgrace that the court accepted the climate defence when climate change as a problem to the world has never had a trial in court to form a basis for that conclusion. To say the fossil fuel suppliers have committed a greater crime but to have failed to even attempt to take them to court before taking vigilante action should have really got them a double sentence not a reduced one. It shows a clear cut and immoral bias by the judge who should be struck off.
So will I get let off if I vandalise Greenpeace and FOE buildings . Of course not. I do not have a powerful and immoral lobby group to back me.