British Democracy Forum
Web | Images | Groups | News | Advanced
Google
Worldwide Results UK Focused Results

Go Back   British Democracy Forum > The Lounge > Talk About Anything > Political Blogs


You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2008, 08:10 PM   #1 (permalink)
Uber Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,790
Blog Bot is just starting out
Default EU Referendum: Lawful excuse?

Advocates of jury trials may have cause to ponder at the verdict delivered at Maidstone Crown Court today on the "Kingsnorth six" – the Greenpeace vandals activists who today escaped conviction for causing £30,000-worth of damage to the power station chimney last year.

This, of course, was the trial where James Hansen gave evidence and, as Reuters reports, the six had claimed by way of defence "lawful excuse".

They argued that they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of global warming climate change, caused in part – or so the Greenpeace website says - by burning coal.

The verdict was delivered by the jury after the judge said he would accept a majority verdict, with Ben Stewart, one of the six, happily chirping, "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement," then adding: "If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it's legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave government energy policy?"

Where indeed, he might ask. But where also does this leave the Conservative Party. Aside from James Hansen, another prominent witness was Zac Goldsmith (pictured with David Cameron). He still styles himself as David Cameron's "environmental policy adviser", and is cited on the Greenpeace website saying there was "a staggering mismatch between what we've heard from government and what we've seen from government in terms of policy".

Thus, on the face of it, we have Greenpeace and the Conservative Party singing from the same hymnsheet, their common "advisor" justifying criminal damage to the property of an energy company.

Unless Cameron acts swiftly, formally to distance himself from Zac Goldsmith, it must be assumed that the leader of the opposition, if not actually endorsing the Greenpeace action, has not disowned it. That, in itself, would speak volumes for Mr Cameron's championship of "hard working families" and their need to obtain cheap, reliable electricity supplies.

For that matter, let's see what the Tory-supporting blogs think of it. It will be interesting to see whether they ignore the issue completely and thus also tacitly endorse the action of their leader's "advisor".

COMMENT THREAD

More...
Blog Bot is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote

You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]

Mobile version

Politishop

eXTReMe Tracker
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0