Oh, the sweet irony, isn’t it just delicious? Here we are, in the year 2024, where the UK’s biggest law firm, DLA Piper, has decided to stick it to those pesky climate activists with a bill so hefty it could make even Scrooge McDuck blink. £1.1 million in legal fees, folks! That’s not just a slap on the wrist; that’s a full-on, legal, financial beatdown. And you know what? I’m here for it, not because I’m against saving the planet – I mean, who isn’t for clean air and water, right? – but because the sheer audacity of this move is something out of a satire.
Britain’s biggest law firm has sought more than £1m from climate protesters to cover the cost of court orders banning them from protesting, an investigation has found.
The multibillion-pound City law firm DLA Piper has been trying to recover costs from activists for work done on behalf of National Highways Limited (NHL) and HS2 Ltd – both public bodies – obtaining injunctions banning protests on their sites.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/16/climate-activists-court-costs-protest-bans-uk-biggest-law-firm-dla-piper
Let’s break this down, shall we? These activists, part of groups like Just Stop Oil, have been climbing on gantries, painting art, and generally making nuisances of themselves in the name of climate justice. They’ve been doing this under the banner of “saving the planet,” which, let’s be honest, sounds noble until you’re stuck in traffic for hours because someone decided to glue themselves to the M25. Now, DLA Piper, a firm so big it probably has its own weather system, decides it’s time to teach these do-gooders a lesson in economics.
First off, let’s talk about the cost. £1.1 million. That’s not just pocket change; that’s the kind of money that could buy you a small island or fund a rather lavish lifestyle for a year or two. But no, DLA Piper, in their infinite wisdom, thinks this is the perfect amount to teach these activists about the real cost of their “protests.” Here’s where the schadenfreude kicks in. These activists, who’ve been preaching about the evils of capitalism and the need for change, are now facing the very system they’ve been railing against. It’s like watching a vegan get hit with a bill for steak dinners they didn’t even eat.
Now, let’s not forget the irony of DLA Piper’s stance. They’re all about “recognising the need to build a sustainable future,” but when it comes to their bottom line, well, that’s a different story. They’re like the guy who drives a Prius but flies private jets on weekends. They’re advising on renewable energy deals, but when it comes to their own legal fees, they’re not exactly practicing what they preach, are they? It’s like they’re saying, “Sure, save the planet, but do it quietly, and if you disrupt our clients’ business, you’ll pay for it. Literally.”
The firm is one of the world’s largest legal advisers to the renewable energy industry and is recognised for advising on more renewable energy deals and projects than any other law firm.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/16/climate-activists-court-costs-protest-bans-uk-biggest-law-firm-dla-piper
And what about the activists? Here they are, facing not just jail time but now financial ruin. The court’s decision to hand out sentences for these protests was already a statement, but this? This is like adding insult to injury with a side of financial despair. They’re learning that in the game of protest, the house always wins, especially when the house is a law firm with more lawyers than most countries have citizens.
The real kicker? The public’s reaction. There’s a segment out there, *cough, cough* like us, watching this unfold with a mix of amusement and satisfaction. “Finally,” they might think, “someone’s making these troublemakers pay for their antics.” It’s the kind of schadenfreude where the spectacle of it all is just too good to pass up. It’s like watching a reality show where the villain gets their comeuppance, only this time, the villain thinks they’re the hero.
So, here we stand, watching DLA Piper, a firm that boasts about its environmental credentials, essentially telling climate activists, “You want change? Fine, but you’ll pay for it in more ways than one.” It’s a masterclass in irony, wrapped in a legal bill, and served with a side of schadenfreude.
You won’t get much out of the activists themselves, these people have no money.
If you want to make them think twice, there needs to be a mechanism by which the organizations and the NGOs who support them (e.g. Open Society Foundation) are made liable for the actions of the activists that they organize and incite. Lawsuits to recover costs from them will also inevitably involve significant legal discovery, which will probably be much more damaging to them than any monetary amount. Expect them to try and settle out of court with attached NDAs.
That principle would cut very deep indeed.Climate, and other activism and lobbying is a very lucrative multi billion dollar business.
And who decides if it is ‘justified’ or not, when the ultimate fall guy is some penniless employee somewhere in some organisation who, like the famous dodgy dossier author, concocted something they read on wikipedia into a politically convenient report.
Which was further modified to completely alter its meaning by a political entity.
(for those too young to remember, the broad thesis was
Iraq probably had had weapons of mass destruction.[chemical shells at least]Iraq had weapons with a range long enough to threaten UK interests [intermediate range ballistic missiles that could reach maybe as far as Gibraltar]Iraq had weapons that could be readied and fired within 45 minutes [well any artillery can be readied in that timescale]That became for the purposes of Parliament,
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be readied in under 45 minutes that directly threatened British territory.
Doctor Kelly died protesting that this was wrong. Alistair Cambell who doctored it was never prosecuted.
Blair who lied to parliament simply said he didn’t know and thought it was the right thing anyway.
The BBC who publicised it was emasculated and its reporter sacked.
I mention this because this is the same pattern that has been followed by climate activists anyway.
Spin a few facts into an alarming narrative, and when challenged cancel the challengers, and when proved to be wrong deny that you knew and affirm the moral high ground anyway.
For me this was the time when the whole moral responsibility of parliament was abdicated.
And it set the tone of all the protests since. Find a moral issue, work out how to push it forward so that you personally benefit, claiming a mortal imperative as justification.
Tony Blair was wither a deliberate liar, or completely incompetent and irresponsible. In either case he should have been sacked. He wasn’t.
The record shows Iraq used WMD (chemical) against Iran when they were at war.
Not proof, but it raises the credibility that there were such weapons when the western alliance went to war with Iraq.
The WMD were not found, but that does not prove they did not exist. Likewise it does not prove they did. There are too many ways to hide things.
It’s pretty clear that Sadam had destroyed them in order to not give the west an excuse to invade. Nothing was subsequently found. He didnt realise how eager the west was to invade anyway, as expressed by Blair and Bush jr. It didnt matter.We have seen the same behaviour of NATO in Ukraine. Opponents need regime change ie, eliminated. But Russia has the means to push back..
That would be my guess, but it would be a guess.
No, it was pretty clear that Saddam’s weapons developers were lying to him about the progress of their efforts (which was really zilch) and the spooks were intercepting those lying reports.
“W” implied that Iraq had WMD far deadlier than chemical. If all we knew was that they used chemical weapons against Iran, that wouldn’t justify a attacking Iraq. Of course we played both sides against each other. I’m not against “the great American Empire”- not at all- but invading Iraq was stupid- but what could we expect from “W”. By the way, Oliver Stone’s film “W” was pretty good. I like Stone’s movies but don’t care much for him.
Once again we will never know the truth.
They searched for years and didn’t find those WMD.
Who cares? Saddam is gone, thank you very much. The only thing the Allies screwed up is the post-war party – firing the whole army and police so they are encouraged to work for the fanatics was a huge mistake – even if most of them had blood on their hands from Saddam’s days.
Needs RICO charges against the sponsor organizations and the people running those organizations.
How about taking legal action against funders and supporters of Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion etc, retweeters, Starmer style. A special section of the police and ultra fast sentencing coupled with out of climate denial jail release. A mirror opposite of the current situation. Our own form of hate speech and misinformation..
You’re correct – the zealots gluing themselves to asphalt and damaging art, are the employees and agents (…and useful idiots of..) those foundations bankrolling them.
The woman with the sign is the picture of wisdom eh?
Is it a woman? Asking for a friend.
Is he that desperate?
Bold of you to assume it is a woman.
My bad. I should have said the ”entity”
And the guy is there because he thinks she is “intelligent” or something… ! 😉
The person socially presents as a woman, so she, purely out of good manners, should be treated as a woman.
Social presentation does not define biology. If a person wants to present and be treated as a woman, fine. Just do not force me to claim the book is defined by the cover.
It’s typical of the Guardian to imply it’s the mega-wealthy law firm suing the idiots for costs.
No, Guardian, the lawyers are acting on behalf of National Highways and HS2
About time too.
Good point.
They are enthusiastic when they are sponsored to cause disruption. Unfortunately, the sponsorship doesn’t cover their legal costs.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
It seems that the “useful idiots” are now longer “useful” ….
Still useful, but perhaps beginning to realize the Idiot part
£1.1 million is chump change for the $1.5 trillion (with a “T”) per year global parasitic climate industry, which is who those chumps shill for.
This post is for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only
I think I may have misunderstood the subscription levels – I thought there were two. The “ads free” subscription is a third level?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/plans/options/
Thank you CR, obviously I DID miss something 🙂
All you had to do is to copy and paste https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/16/climate-activists-court-costs-protest-bans-uk-biggest-law-firm-dla-piper
into your browser. Are you that lazy?
Sometimes a judge will reduce a liar’s …. er, I mean lawyer’s fee. I think they have that power, at least in the US.
Story here
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-08-16/city-law-firm-sought-eye-watering-1.1m-costs-from-climate-protesters
Excepts:
Another of those targeted was Louise Lancaster, who continued to protest and received a 42-day suspended sentence in 2022 alongside an order to pay £22,000 in costs. Last month, she was jailed for four years for coordinating protests on the M25..
At least one has been jailed. Will she learn> I doubt it
Proceedings take place in civil courts, where costs can be huge and initial injunction proceedings do not qualify for legal aid. The majority of campaigners subject to the National Highways injunctions had no legal representation and feared the potential costs. The result is that wealthy people who want to bully peaceful protesters “can do so with impunity,” Powlesland said.
Hypocritical to blame ‘wealthy people’ bullying protestors but not the protestors bullying the public and exppecting impunity for disrupting the lives of the wealthy and not so wealthy