Fracking Protestors
Discussion
TonyToniTone said:
dm said:
Judge who jailed 'Fracking Three' for climbing on lorries at drilling site has family links to oil and gas firms - and sister said 'give shale a chance' in letter backing controversial process
A judge's impartiality may be questioned if relatives are 'politically active' or have 'financial interest' in a case's outcome, according to the judicial code of conduct.
Should the judge have recused himself from this case?A judge's impartiality may be questioned if relatives are 'politically active' or have 'financial interest' in a case's outcome, according to the judicial code of conduct.
gazza285 said:
Why, because the family firm sells off shore supplies? Is Little Plumpton in the Irish Sea now?
How about this judge from today - not heard much more damning than this before - Mr Justice Supperstone said:
Fracking to start
... "no evidence" to support the claim" ...
"The claimant first has to establish that there is a serious issue to be tried." "I am satisfied that the claimant falls at the first hurdle."...
"entirely satisfied that the claim as formulated is unarguable".
... "no evidence" to support the claim" ...
"The claimant first has to establish that there is a serious issue to be tried." "I am satisfied that the claimant falls at the first hurdle."...
"entirely satisfied that the claim as formulated is unarguable".
The trio have been freed by the Court Of Appeal
said:
Quashing their jail terms the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: "We have concluded that an immediate custodial sentence in the case of these appellants was manifestly excessive.
"In our judgment the appropriate sentence which should have been imposed on September 26 was a community order with a significant requirement of unpaid work.
"But these appellants have been in prison for six weeks.
"As a result, and only for that reason, we have concluded that the appropriate sentence now is a conditional discharge for two years."
Supporters in the packed courtroom, who had gathered outside for a demonstration before the hearing, erupted into applause as the decision was announced.
The judge said the court would give full reasons for its ruling at a later date.
The appeal was supported by human rights organisation Liberty and environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth.
A fourth activist, Julian Brock, 47, from Torquay, was sentenced to 12 months in custody, suspended for 18 months, after he admitted public nuisance.
"In our judgment the appropriate sentence which should have been imposed on September 26 was a community order with a significant requirement of unpaid work.
"But these appellants have been in prison for six weeks.
"As a result, and only for that reason, we have concluded that the appropriate sentence now is a conditional discharge for two years."
Supporters in the packed courtroom, who had gathered outside for a demonstration before the hearing, erupted into applause as the decision was announced.
The judge said the court would give full reasons for its ruling at a later date.
The appeal was supported by human rights organisation Liberty and environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth.
A fourth activist, Julian Brock, 47, from Torquay, was sentenced to 12 months in custody, suspended for 18 months, after he admitted public nuisance.
Hmm...
That's a major slap down for the original judge ... "manifestly excessive" is legalese for "bloody ridiculous".
Meanwhile "Judge Altham’s father and sister run J.C. Altham & Sons, part of the supply chain for Centrica, which has made major investments in fracking. The Judicial Conduct Office has confirmed that it had received a complaint regarding Altham which will be considered in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Act 2014”.
That's a major slap down for the original judge ... "manifestly excessive" is legalese for "bloody ridiculous".
Meanwhile "Judge Altham’s father and sister run J.C. Altham & Sons, part of the supply chain for Centrica, which has made major investments in fracking. The Judicial Conduct Office has confirmed that it had received a complaint regarding Altham which will be considered in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Act 2014”.
sim72 said:
Hmm...
That's a major slap down for the original judge ... "manifestly excessive" is legalese for "bloody ridiculous".
Meanwhile "Judge Altham’s father and sister run J.C. Altham & Sons, part of the supply chain for Centrica, which has made major investments in fracking. The Judicial Conduct Office has confirmed that it had received a complaint regarding Altham which will be considered in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Act 2014”.
Not really, a 'major slap down' would have been to overturn the ruling, not just the sentence.That's a major slap down for the original judge ... "manifestly excessive" is legalese for "bloody ridiculous".
Meanwhile "Judge Altham’s father and sister run J.C. Altham & Sons, part of the supply chain for Centrica, which has made major investments in fracking. The Judicial Conduct Office has confirmed that it had received a complaint regarding Altham which will be considered in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Act 2014”.
They remain guilty of the offence.
The Surveyor said:
Not really, a 'major slap down' would have been to overturn the ruling, not just the sentence.
They remain guilty of the offence.
I don't think there was really any doubt that they were guilty of it. Even their solicitor tacitly admitted that in court; today was all about the sentence. They remain guilty of the offence.
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
BTW I have read lots of the science on fracking (for a case). I am not bothered about water contamination or about seismic activity. My beef with fracking is that it is just more fossil fuel extraction, and so a postponement of replacing fossil fuels.
Why not help the situation. Turn off your electricity, sell your cars, turn off your computer and your mobile phone. Start sh@ting in the garden. Grow your own food. Get a book on homeopathic medicine so you do not need to use modern hospitals. Personally I will continue to enjoy the comforts of a modern economy.
sim72 said:
I don't think there was really any doubt that they were guilty of it. Even their solicitor tacitly admitted that in court; today was all about the sentence.
As much as I detest the disruption people like that cause and am all for extraction of fossil fuels, I did feel the jail terms were hard for the crime committed. Looks like I wasn't on my own.
Let's hope the scare is enough to knock some sense into them.
Breadvan72 said:
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
BTW I have read lots of the science on fracking (for a case). I am not bothered about water contamination or about seismic activity. My beef with fracking is that it is just more fossil fuel extraction, and so a postponement of replacing fossil fuels.
Why not help the situation. Turn off your electricity, sell your cars, turn off your computer and your mobile phone. Start sh@ting in the garden. Grow your own food. Get a book on homeopathic medicine so you do not need to use modern hospitals. Personally I will continue to enjoy the comforts of a modern economy.
We get 20% of our natural gas from Qatar; a nation ranked the 3rd highest emitter of CO2. Before it is sent to us, it has to be converted to liquefied natural gas by super-cooling, a process that requires a lot of energy, most likely from fossil fuels. It is then transported by ocean going tankers, which again burn fossil fuels. By extracting gas locally, we reduce overall consumption.
Breadvan72 said:
BTW I have read lots of the science on fracking (for a case). I am not bothered about water contamination or about seismic activity. My beef with fracking is that it is just more fossil fuel extraction, and so a postponement of replacing fossil fuels.
Is that because you don't live near an area likely to be fracked? Fracking causes seismic activity and the additives used in fracking do find their way into the water table (all be in in possible harmless quantities) these are about the only two facts agreed on by all sides in this debate. 
The water table is nowhere near the fracking zone which is thousands of feet below.
It's protected by cemented casings, the same way an oil or gas well is. Do you get oil and gas in your water table? No.
Should start bringing in equipment towed by steam rollers and drive over the muppets.
It's protected by cemented casings, the same way an oil or gas well is. Do you get oil and gas in your water table? No.
Should start bringing in equipment towed by steam rollers and drive over the muppets.
We are now past the arguments, debates, the rights, the wrongs etc. There is no point going over and over them.
The fact is that the operator is working in a legal framework and has the right to get on with it.
Some may not like it - I'm certainly not comfortable with the legal framework used but it is how we get on with life.
I've already said I felt the jail sentences were too harsh in my opinion but seeing the bloke who was released on Ch4 last night, I'd want to throw him back in jail straight away as he is obstructing rights as much as the rights he's trying to protect.
The fact is that the operator is working in a legal framework and has the right to get on with it.
Some may not like it - I'm certainly not comfortable with the legal framework used but it is how we get on with life.
I've already said I felt the jail sentences were too harsh in my opinion but seeing the bloke who was released on Ch4 last night, I'd want to throw him back in jail straight away as he is obstructing rights as much as the rights he's trying to protect.
FredClogs said:
Is that because you don't live near an area likely to be fracked? Fracking causes seismic activity and the additives used in fracking do find their way into the water table (all be in in possible harmless quantities) these are about the only two facts agreed on by all sides in this debate.
Is it? I was under the impression that the fracking industry has evidence that the UK plans would not cause either of those. mcdjl said:
FredClogs said:
Is that because you don't live near an area likely to be fracked? Fracking causes seismic activity and the additives used in fracking do find their way into the water table (all be in in possible harmless quantities) these are about the only two facts agreed on by all sides in this debate.
Is it? I was under the impression that the fracking industry has evidence that the UK plans would not cause either of those. I personally know of at least one payout already; for an affected building in the area.
mcdjl said:
FredClogs said:
Is that because you don't live near an area likely to be fracked? Fracking causes seismic activity and the additives used in fracking do find their way into the water table (all be in in possible harmless quantities) these are about the only two facts agreed on by all sides in this debate.
Is it? I was under the impression that the fracking industry has evidence that the UK plans would not cause either of those. And the myriad of data from what's happening in texas. It's absolutely not in question, fracking causes seismic activity and removal of waste water is by no means a completely assured process.
FredClogs said:
You can read the enquiry findings of what happened at the Preese Hall fracking site which was the pre cursor to what's going on in The Fylde at the moment.
And the myriad of data from what's happening in texas. It's absolutely not in question, fracking causes seismic activity and removal of waste water is by no means a completely assured process.
So it has. Mind you if we're going to ban fracking on that basis we'd better also ban geothermal: And the myriad of data from what's happening in texas. It's absolutely not in question, fracking causes seismic activity and removal of waste water is by no means a completely assured process.
In Lancashire, UK, 58 earthquakes were linked to fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing at the Preese Hall well in 2011 (de Pater and Baisch, 2011). The largest, on 1 April 2011, had a magnitude of 2.3 and was felt locally.......
Induced earthquakes with magnitudes as large as 3.5-4.0 ML are well documented in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)......
The process of hydraulic fracturing appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. A report by the National Research Council in the U.S., which examined the scale, scope and consequences of seismicity induced during fluid injection and withdrawal related to energy technologies, concluded that the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events. A review of the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas exploration and production by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012 concluded that the surface impacts of any seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be negligible. A report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK by Green et al (2012) set out a number of recommendations for the mitigation of seismic risk in future hydraulic fracture operations for shale gas. Some of these recommendations were adopted as part of the regulatory framework for future operations.
Induced earthquakes with magnitudes as large as 3.5-4.0 ML are well documented in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)......
The process of hydraulic fracturing appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. A report by the National Research Council in the U.S., which examined the scale, scope and consequences of seismicity induced during fluid injection and withdrawal related to energy technologies, concluded that the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events. A review of the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas exploration and production by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012 concluded that the surface impacts of any seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be negligible. A report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK by Green et al (2012) set out a number of recommendations for the mitigation of seismic risk in future hydraulic fracture operations for shale gas. Some of these recommendations were adopted as part of the regulatory framework for future operations.
Mind you i've also felt far larger earth quakes in the UK that happened all by themselves.
mcdjl said:
Mind you i've also felt far larger earth quakes in the UK that happened all by themselves.
We had earthquakes here long before any fracking started (Feb 2008, 5.2) and long after they stopped (2013, 2.4 and 3.2)https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/earthquake...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-2...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff