>francis wrote:

>> On 11 Sep, 09:08, BrianW hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 11 Sep, 07:22, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> On 10 Sep, 17:26, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Doug
>>>> riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were

>>>>> saying:

>>>

>>>>>> The six Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth power station have
>>>>>> been found not guilty. The activists claimed they were lawfully
>>>>>> right to damage the plant because they believed it would prevent
>>>>>> further damage around the world from global warming.

>>>

>>>>>> This supports the idea that it is OK to cause a small amount of
>>>>>> harm to prevent a greater amount of harm.

>>>

>>>>> Not quite. In the absence of any information about the jury's
>>>>> deliberations, it only says that they did not find them guilty
>>>>> beyond reasonable doubt.

>>>

>>>> LOL! You are wrong yet again. Here is confirmation.

>>>

>>>> "Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful
>>>> excuse"
>>>> to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent
>>>> even
>>>> greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful
>>>> excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be
>>>> caused
>>>> to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down
>>>> the
>>>> door of a burning house to tackle a fire."

>>>
>>> Bzzzt - wrong. Unless the journalist spoke to the jurors in question
>>> (which is unlikely, as it would constitute a criminal offence), this
>>> is nothing more than a guess. In England, the actual reasons behind
>>> the jury's decision are never revealed.
>>>
>>> That's three basic fuck ups on criminal law in one day, Gollum - well
>>> done.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -

>>
>> I wonder if it would be allowable to cut Dougs hands off to stop him
>> doing greater damage to this NG.
>>

>Or to break into his house and wreck his computers to achieve the same
>result?
>