Hippys let off £30k of Criminal Damage

[ChristianZS]

"Sorry M'Lud.. I were speeding to highlight the issues of "Climate Change" "

I wonder if that would get me off?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kin...

Edited by ChristianZS on Wednesday 10th September 18:42

[groucho]

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

[Chrispy Porker]

groucho said:

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

Yes.
As long as the jury agree with you.
Hardly the first time such things have happened.

[stone]

They shouldn't have got off with this IMHO but how on earth did they calculate that to be £30k of damage?

[Flintstone]

So if we know they'll be let off in future just let them get on with abseiling down structures, daubing paint as they go. Sooner or later some of them will come a cropper.

Who cares if a chimney has 'Gordon' painted on it?

[VxDuncan]

SO they had Camerons climate adviser helping them out in the dock? That's worrying. Very worrying.

[tonyvid]

Chrispy Porker said:

groucho said:

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

Yes.
As long as the jury agree with you.
Hardly the first time such things have happened.

The same thing happened a few years ago at BAE Warton when some aircraft got damaged by peace protesters - the Liverpool(?) jury found them not gulity even though they had fully admitted to the damage at the time.

[chris watton]

stone said:

They shouldn't have got off with this IMHO but how on earth did they calculate that to be £30k of damage?

My thoughts exactly - H&S costs perhaps?

[groucho]

tonyvid said:

Chrispy Porker said:

groucho said:

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

Yes.
As long as the jury agree with you.
Hardly the first time such things have happened.

The same thing happened a few years ago at BAE Warton when some aircraft got damaged by peace protesters - the Liverpool(?) jury found them not gulity even though they had fully admitted to the damage at the time.

This makes no sense. The reason why you did it must be separate from the crime, shirley? Otherwise what's the point, justice will become subjective.

[stone]

chris watton said:

stone said:

They shouldn't have got off with this IMHO but how on earth did they calculate that to be £30k of damage?

My thoughts exactly - H&S costs perhaps?

I've no doubt someone, somewhere can justify the cost but back in the real world that can't cost £30k to put right

[Chrispy Porker]

groucho said:

tonyvid said:

Chrispy Porker said:

groucho said:

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

Yes.
As long as the jury agree with you.
Hardly the first time such things have happened.

The same thing happened a few years ago at BAE Warton when some aircraft got damaged by peace protesters - the Liverpool(?) jury found them not gulity even though they had fully admitted to the damage at the time.

This makes no sense. The reason why you did it must be separate from the crime, shirley? Otherwise what's the point, justice will become subjective.

It already is.
It is down to what the jury think, having heard the evidence, not the facts.
There is a difference.

[elster]

I just can't believe the jury's verdict. What kind of morons must they be!!

So it is OK to trespass and vandalise? Is this the new law.

Can I put grafitti anywhere I want as long as it is political?

If I meet any member of Greenpeace I will punch them.

[dougc]

elster said:

I just can't believe the jury's verdict. What kind of morons must they be!!

Thats the problem. They're 12 members of the public who think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. Two out of 12 or 4 out of 12 I could accept as being wackos but the whole lot of them?

It's a worrying commentary on the brainwashed mentality of the man or woman in the street when it comes to 'global warming'

[elster]

dougc said:

elster said:

I just can't believe the jury's verdict. What kind of morons must they be!!

Thats the problem. They're 12 members of the public who think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. Two out of 12 or 4 out of 12 I could accept as being wackos but the whole lot of them?

It's a worrying commentary on the brainwashed mentality of the man or woman in the street when it comes to 'global warming'

Can the public demand a retrial, much like the terror suspects who caused us all misery on travels by putting all liquids in stupid bloody plastic bags

[wiffmaster]

Hypothetically, if I were to scale Greenpeace HQ and write in giant white letters "Get a job, you soap dodging hippie parasites" would I get away with it? With a jury of sound mind, I'd like to think that perhaps I would....

[tonyvid]

groucho said:

tonyvid said:

Chrispy Porker said:

groucho said:

So, if you think you have a valid reason for it you can go around vandalising stuff with impunity? This is what can be inferred by this judgement.

Yes.
As long as the jury agree with you.
Hardly the first time such things have happened.

The same thing happened a few years ago at BAE Warton when some aircraft got damaged by peace protesters - the Liverpool(?) jury found them not gulity even though they had fully admitted to the damage at the time.

This makes no sense. The reason why you did it must be separate from the crime, shirley? Otherwise what's the point, justice will become subjective.

The defence was a crime to stop a bigger crime....or something.