It's about time someone said this. The Greenpeace half-wits (so-
called because they don't know what they are talking about) got away
with breaking the law to their own surprise. But the culpability
lies elsewhere - firstly with the prosecution who hadn't the gumption
to realise that Greenpeace would do everything to make this a cause
celebre - they ought to have known because Greenpeace gave plenty of
notice that they would pull out all the publicity stops.
Then the prosecution went through the whole routine of proving that
the men involved acted as charged and that they had been warned -
facts which the accused didn't dispute. A nimble defence made
mincemeat of a run-of-the-mill prosecution. Maybe they didn't
bother because they only wanted to go through the motions anyway. In
any case the result is that the laws of criminal damage have been
changed for all of us. (Clarkson deals with this with his customary
clarity !),
Finally the judge's summing up - as reported here - was grossly
flawed. His role is to advise the jury on the law while the jury's
role is to adjudicate on facts. He failed.
This may seem a 'storm-in-a-teacup' but, in fact, the rule of law
which is a vital component of a free society has been put at risk.
The Crown Prosecution Service could appeal the verdict. With this
government I doubt if they will.
xxxxxxxxxxxx cs
13.9.08Weird beards have got a green light for chaos
JEREMY CLARKSON
LAST October, six environmental protesters from Greenpeace climbed up
a power station chimney in Kent and wrote the word "Gordon" in 10ft-
high letters down the side.
It wasn't exactly the race riots of '67 but whatever.
This week, they appeared in court charged with causing £30,000 of
criminal damage.
The prosecution thought it would all be very straightforward.
None of the six claimed that they were in Antigua at the time. They
all freely admitted they were responsible. And apparently, they all
expected to get a punishment of some kind.
And yet, by a majority verdict, they were all acquitted.
They claimed that by trying to shut down the power station, they were
trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property
around the world.
And the judge, David Chaddick, seems to have accepted this as a
plausible line of defence.
He told the jury in his summing up that their actions would be
justified if there was an immediate need to protect property
belonging to other people.
It seems to me that Mr Chaddick has opened a can of worms here.
Because what if someone with a beard full of spittle and hate decides
that my love of speed on Top Gear encourages car makers to build ever
larger engines?
Stabbed
Would Mr Weird Beard be entitled to come round to my house one night
and cut off my arms?
According to his Judgeness, the answer is yes, he would.
At the very least he would be allowed to scale the north face of my
back and tattoo the word "Gordon" on my forehead.
It's not just me either. The world is full of cyclists who bang with
their fists on Range Rovers as they glide by.
Now, they will have the law on their side if they drag the driver
from behind the wheel and beat him to a bloody pulp.
Your house could be torched if you have central heating.
You could be stabbed for buying Greek bananas and fed into a mincing
machine for using the wrong type of carrier bag.
Or try this for size. Many in the Anglican Church believe that
homosexuality is a sin and that gay men are largely to blame for the
spread of Aids.
Well now, according to the law, vicars are legally entitled to push
Graham Norton into a canal.
Of course, if you were to see someone walking through the streets at
night in a stripy jumper and a mask, carrying a crowbar and a swag
bag, you would be entitled to use some kind of force to bring him to
the ground.
Because it could be proved in court, beyond reasonable doubt, that by
doing so you prevented him from stealing someone's cherished DVD player.
What interests me about the Greenpeace case is that the legal system
now accepts global warming is real, that man is causing it, and that
anyone is entitled to smash up anything they like if they feel it
will help cool the world down again.
I just wish the prosecution had brought the founder of Greenpeace to
the stand.
He's called Dr Patrick Moore, and he explained recently that even
though the amount of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere is
rising, global temperatures have been falling since 1998.
When asked if he thought man was definitely causing global warming,
he said "the answer is a resounding No".
Sadly, for thinking this, he may have to be killed.
Posts
