|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Sep 11, 2008 23:58
|
| |
|
| | 42 Comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Sep 11, 2008 23:59
Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says the
> jury agreed with the judge.
Is that yet more speculation by the press, or will somebody be facing
"contempt of court" charges?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: NotMeNotMe Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:24
On 12 Sep, 07:58, Doug riseup.net> wrote:> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says the
> jury agreed with the judge.
>
> "Protesters have been given a legal 'green light' to commit crime
> after six Greenpeace activists accused of vandalising a power station
> were cleared, an ex minister has warned.
>
> The eco-campaigners admitted causing damage to the value of £30,000
> when they climbed a chimney and began painting a slogan.
Great!
Does this mean we can all wander around to your house and throw bricks
through your windows?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:28
On 12 Sep, 08:24, NotMe googlemail.com> wrote:> On 12 Sep, 07:58, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says the
>> jury agreed with the judge.
>
>> "Protesters have been given a legal 'green light' to commit crime
>> after six Greenpeace activists accused of vandalising a power station
>> were cleared, an ex minister has warned.
>
>> The eco-campaigners admitted causing damage to the value of £30,000
>> when they climbed a chimney and began painting a slogan.
>
> Great!
> Does this mean we can all wander around to your house and throw bricks
> through your windows?
>
Only if you can show that I am causing a greater harm than your brick,
which would be extremely difficult if you are a motorist causing more
harm than me by driving to my house. ...
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:44
> But a judge allowed them to base their 'lawful excuse' defence around
> their cause: the fear that the power station could contribute to
> climate change...
I will be very surprised if this does not go to Appeal and even more
surprised if the decision is not overturned.
Colin Bignell
|
| |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:59
Doug wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 08:24, NotMe googlemail.com> wrote:>> On 12 Sep, 07:58, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says
>>> the jury agreed with the judge.
>>
>>> "Protesters have been given a legal 'green light' to commit crime
>>> after six Greenpeace activists accused of vandalising a power
>>> station were cleared, an ex minister has warned.
>>
>>> The eco-campaigners admitted causing damage to the value of
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Sep 12, 2008 01:08
On 12 Sep, 08:44, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> But a judge allowed them to base their 'lawful excuse' defence around
>> their cause: the fear that the power station could contribute to
>> climate change...
>
> I will be very surprised if this does not go to Appeal and even more
> surprised if the decision is not overturned.
It can't be overturned on appeal.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Sep 12, 2008 01:13
On 12 Sep, 07:58, Doug riseup.net> wrote:> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says the
> jury agreed with the judge.
You really are clutching at straws, aren't you Duhg? All the sources
you have provided are sloppily written, containing speculation by
journalists who probably have little more understanding than you of
law. It is illegal to ask a jury, and illegal for a jury member to
disclose, any details of why they reached their verdict.
Here is a link to the relevant statute for you to misunderstand in the
way only you can:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=45&NavFrom...
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 12, 2008 01:13
> On 12 Sep, 08:44, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>>> But a judge allowed them to base their 'lawful excuse' defence around
>>> their cause: the fear that the power station could contribute to
>>> climate change...
>>
>> I will be very surprised if this does not go to Appeal and even more
>> surprised if the decision is not overturned.
>
> It can't be overturned on appeal.
Why not? It would appear to be a point of law as to whether the defence was
properly allowed.
|
| Show full article (0.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BrianWBrianW Date: Sep 12, 2008 01:17
On 12 Sep, 07:58, Doug riseup.net> wrote:> Just in case those here have any doubts about the matter. It says the
> jury agreed with the judge.
Read that manslaughter case yet, Gollum? May I assume from your lack
of further comment that you now admit you were talking out of your
anus?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
