Xann Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Quote Protect the right to protest: don't unfairly punish people who oppose fracking The ability of communities to organise, provide critical voices and offer something more than symbolic opposition to the fracking industry is essential. But there are increasingly severe outcomes and restrictions on protesters involved in protest actions against the fracking industry. These sentences are disproportionate to the acts that they have committed. We should all be treated equally under the law, no matter what we're protesting about. And the UK government needs to protect the right to protest, starting with commissioning the Joint Committee on Human Rights to conduct a thematic inquiry into the declining space for civil society to effectively oppose the fracking industry in the UK. Why is this important? On 26 September 2018, four protesters received lengthy custodial sentences for their part in blocking fracking trucks from entering Preston New Road site. The civil space for local communities to protest against the shale oil and gas industry in the UK is becoming more and more restricted and this represents a growing threat to fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This is exemplified by: - The granting of sweeping civil injunctions to private companies, giving them special legal treatment in the face of widespread public protests. - Central government proposals to bypass local councils by making exploratory drilling a ‘permitted development’ - removing the need for planning permission and for local communities to raise their objections through their local representative body. 38 Degrees Petition 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted October 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 2, 2018 ..and it's not just fracking, it's wherever 'people' are a nuisance. Look at the recent attempts to prosecute an old lady with a plastic toy trumpet at a protest against the felling of trees in Sheffield, or the people stood in a car park in Scotland with a Scottish flag. Terrorist anti business bastards the lot of 'em. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Terrorist anti business bastards the lot of 'em. I know that's obviously tongue in cheek satirical, but the thing is, for me anyway, it's nothing to do with big business in terms of the protests. The protests in the case of Sheffield, and PNR are and were because of broken democracy. PNR fracking - the parish council voted to decline permission for it, then the local council, district council, County council - all declined permission. Sajid Javid of the tory bastard gov't just overruled the lot of them and the will of the local people. With Sheffield, the local labour bastard council outsourced highway maintenance to Amey plc and hid the details from the population, and then when the population started getting antsy about the trees in their streets being chopped down despite being perfectly healthy, the council continued to be bastards and lied and hid detail about what they'd done. Many of the protesters have more of an issue with whatever level of Gov't and its bad behaviour than with businesses*. The courts aren't IMO being used to protect businesses, they're being used to protect, ultimately, Ministers or Council Leaders. If councillors and MPs did their jobs properly then the likes of Cuadrilla and Amey wouldn't have a viable business concerning fracking or tree felling and they'd stop. *I have a problem with the businesses, too 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, blandy said: I know that's obviously tongue in cheek satirical, but the thing is, for me anyway, it's nothing to do with big business in terms of the protests. Agree entirely with all you said, in fact I'm struggling to think of an instance that doesn't track back to an original bad decision by a tier of 'government'. My own local variation, everyone's arsey about the French dumping untested mud from Hinckley just off Penarth Pier. It was the Welsh Assembly and Natural Resources Wales that sold the dumping license and didn't see the need to consult or test the mud in any scientific or meaningful way. Ditto, selling 34 million quids worth of forest for 3 million, putting a new incinerator at the bottom of a cliff with existing houses and a school at the top of the cliff...and on....and on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I'm struggling to think of an instance that doesn't track back to an original bad decision by a tier of 'government'. Indeed. And it's not just bad decisions, it's almost always compunded by hypocrisy and double standards. So multiple tiers of councils and huge swathes of local residents, plus climate scientists and climate treaty obligations decide against fracking permission, and be over-ruled by a bastard tory minister, but it takes a mere hint of complaint about a wind turbine by a single soul and that's that stopped. Or like you said about nuclear plants and waste... It's a rigged system and then it's compounded by law enforcement being politicised and used as a weapon against legitimate protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 2, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 28 minutes ago, blandy said: If councillors and MPs did their jobs properly then the likes of Cuadrilla and Amey wouldn't have a viable business concerning fracking or tree felling and they'd stop. I think those councillors and MP's would be quick to tell you that if the likes of Cuadrilla and Amey are profitable, then they're exactly doing their jobs. Business makes the decisions, the MPs are the middlemen, whether that's a minister with a portfolio and a future board position overruling local democracy or a council being deliberately underfunded in order to ensure private business gets its fill - the poor buggers we vote for are just the people that carry out the instruction. I fully blame business. *I have a problem with the politicians, too - but I think it's pretty much impossible to separate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: I think those councillors and MP's would be quick to tell you that if the likes of Cuadrilla and Amey are profitable, then they're exactly doing their jobs. No, I don't think they would. I think that's a stereotype that's utterly misplaced. It's immensely wrong, IMO. Aside from the obvious point that re the Fracking, both at PNR (as detailed above, it was rejected at every level by councils) but also elsewhere councils and councillors are bang against it - even tory ones, and have even been on the protest lines trying to disrupt and stop it, we can also look at Sheffield and the trees. Again, Sheffield council has said they were forced into putting out the highways contract to contractors, by Tory Gov't diktat. For al ltheir deviousl lying and anti democratic and bullying behaviour, there's no hint of a suggestion they've been that way because Capitalism and big business... I grant you the Minister for being a tory bastard may think or say "profits", but I suspect it's not really that, even. Future board positions post political career, or party donations, or favours returned. These are much more likely motivators at that level, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 On 14/09/2018 at 00:33, snowychap said: Isn't that theft by finding? Edit: I'm talking about taking a percentage of any cash not charging fees. Going back to this, I believe it is perfectly legal to recover losses before returning found property. Theft by finding only applies if there is no intention to return. A company who have a lost property department are clearly intending to reunite the property with its owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, bickster said: Going back to this, I believe it is perfectly legal to recover losses before returning found property. Theft by finding only applies if there is no intention to return. A company who have a lost property department are clearly intending to reunite the property with its owner Just not a proportion of the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 Just now, snowychap said: Just not a proportion of the cash. No I believe that is actually legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, bickster said: No I believe that is actually legal I do understand that (it's in the schedule of charges permitted in the relevant regulations, I believe) but it doesn't really take away from the point, i.e. they are clearly not intending to return a proportion of the property (the cash) to the owner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 2, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2018 18 minutes ago, snowychap said: I do understand that (it's in the schedule of charges permitted in the relevant regulations, I believe) but it doesn't really take away from the point, i.e. they are clearly not intending to return a proportion of the property (the cash) to the owner. Ah misunderstood your post! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2018 Quote While Nestlé extracts millions of litres from their land, residents have no drinking water Just 90 minutes from Toronto, residents of a First Nations community try to improve the water situation as the beverage company extracts from their land Grauniad Revolting company. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted October 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 11, 2018 Quote A judge criticised for handing prison sentences to three fracking protesters has family links to the oil and gas industry. Judge Robert Altham jailed Simon Blevins, 26, Richard Roberts, 36, and Richard Loizou, 31, over their demonstration at a Cuadrilla site. The trio, known as the “Fracking Three”, are believed to be the first environmental activists to be imprisoned for public nuisance since 1932. Critics have claimed the punishment was “manifestly excessive”. Now the Daily Mirror can reveal the Altham family business supplies the Irish Sea oil and gas industry. J.C. Altham and Sons is believed to be part of the supply chain for energy giant Centrica, which has invested tens of millions of pounds in fracking. Judge Altham’s sister, Jane Watson, put her name to an open letter in favour of fracking, which said, “It’s time to give shale a chance” and claimed it would create jobs. The judicial code of conduct states a judge’s impartiality may be questioned if family members are “politically active” or have “financial interest” in the outcome of a case. Lawyers for the protesters are trying to overturn their sentences. Loizou’s mum Sharron, 62, told the Mirror: “I was completely shocked when he was jailed, the sentence is incredibly harsh. We were expecting community service or a suspended sentence. “It’s quite scary that in this country you can be jailed for a peaceful protest.” Mirror 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Quote Three protesters jailed for blocking access to a fracking site have had their sentences quashed by the court of appeal, which called them “manifestly excessive”. Sir Ian Burnett, the lord chief justice, said: “We have concluded that an immediate custodial sentence in the case of these defendants was manifestly excessive. “In our judgement the appropriate sentence was a community order with a significant requirement of unpaid work. But these appellants have been in custody now for two weeks, the equivalent of a six-week prison sentence. As a result, and only for that reason, we’ve concluded that the only appropriate sentence is a conditional discharge.” The activists, Simon Blevins, 26, Richard Roberts, 36, and Rich Loizou, 31, were jailed after a four-week trial last month led to their convictions for causing a public nuisance for a protest at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site in Lancashire. The packed courtroom erupted with applause and some supporters began singing after the decision was announced. Loizou’s father, Platon, said: “Justice has been done today. We shouldn’t be here in the first place, but justice has been done.” Grauniad Aw - Cuadrilla's pet judge had his ridiculous sentencing overturned 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 ^Platon Loizou - what a cracking name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 17, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, snowychap said: ^Platon Loizou - what a fracking name. fixed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 17, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, snowychap said: ^Platon Loizou - what a cracking name. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 (edited) Quote The plastics recycling industry is facing an investigation into suspected widespread abuse and fraud within the export system amid warnings the world is about to close the door on UK packaging waste, the Guardian has learned. The Environment Agency (EA) has set up a team of investigators, including three retired police officers, in an attempt to deal with complaints that organised criminals and firms are abusing the system. Six UK exporters of plastic waste have had their licences suspended or cancelled in the last three months, according to EA data. One firm has had 57 containers of plastic waste stopped at UK ports in the last three years due to concerns over contamination of waste. Allegations that the agency is understood to be investigating include: Exporters are falsely claiming for tens of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste which might not exist UK plastic waste is not being recycled and is being left to leak into rivers and oceans Illegal shipments of plastic waste are being routed to the Far East via the Netherlands UK firms with serial offences of shipping contaminated waste are being allowed to continue exporting. Grauniad Edited October 19, 2018 by Xann Double window thread confusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 The Rockefeller Foundation as a philanthropy organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts