You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A barrister for one of the men told Preston crown court that they would become the first environmental activists to receive jail sentences for staging a protest in the UK since the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in the Peak District in 1932, which marked the beginning of the right-to-roam movement. Activists have previously been given jail sentences for charges related to their protests, like breaking injunctions and contempt of court.
On the local news but not the main site seems as though the Govt want to keep this one low key, seems very over the top the sentencing!!
I fear for this country if this is how low we can get to keep the big companies happy!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-45652464
Both say they were jailed??
Wow, 15 months for that. Crazy.
The BBC aren't the government, put your tin foil hat away.
I have a horse in this race having worked in the oil industry and now for the BBC as a subcontractor, makes you think.
BBC coverage not withstanding this is a very nasty precedent. Certainly a small piece of news which will have a bigger impact than many people will currently be giving it credit for.
Edit: should read the thread properly
The BBC are too busy reporting for the fourth day in a row about an attractive, white, middle class girl who died three years ago.
These appear to be attractive, white, middle class men, so I’m not sure what your point is.
The BBC are too busy reporting for the fourth day in a row about an attractive, white, middle class girl who died three years ago.
Not to mention the actress turned princess who closed a car door all by herself. Quality journalism right there.
"I have a horse in this race having worked in the oil industry and now for the BBC as a subcontractor, makes you think."
Not buying into the conspiracy theory side but ffs 16 months is ridiculously out of proportion for what they did. If the judge is concerned about re-offending then give them all the 12 month suspended sentence (as one of them got), that way at least they'll know in advance they'll get a fairly long custodial sentence if they carry on with such protests.
Outrageous, utterly outrageous. I’d be appealing straight away.
Wasn’t like they were trespassing on a Forces base (Greenham Common etc)! Just some land with some builders machinery on.. like any building site anywhere in the country.
But happy to see the BBC still reporting some old buffer who was able to tap out morse code back in the 2WW.. ffs.
Thought I'd look up other things that might get you 16 months:
Giselle McKenna got 16 months for armed robbery and kidnap in Windsor.
Jonathan Jennings for incitement to kill in Swansea.
Richard Trezise for doing gas work unqualified.
Calum Nann for multiple assaults with a weapon and biting a constable in Stornoway.
Aaron Darcy for attempted kidnap of a 10 yr old in Liverpool (but there are extenuating circumstances for that one).
Gary Green for killing an 11 yr old whilst driving drunk in Leeds.
Mobein Ali for killing two people by driving dangerously whilst banned in Manchester.
Haven’t we established that the bbc website is rubbish and doesn’t have any news at all on it anymore? This is therefore more of a hypothetical arguement about what coverage would a hypothetical bbc website have given it hypothetically in a world where it’s not shit? In which case it’s hard to say
Local news Prince John
So someone is annoyed that what they think is very important news is not the main news item on the BBC website, even though the BBC has reported it. Why do we expect the BBC to report this as an important news item. Sadly more people are interested in knowing the Megan closes her own car door than the fact that two environmental protesters got 16 months. The BBC are not required to educate them.
Actually they are....
BBC Mission Statement
To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.
Looks like excessive sentencing.
In terms of reporting it's not on the front page or front news page of Guardian, Telegraph, ITV, independent as well as BBC. But is on C4 news with a 3 minute video:
https://www.channel4.com/news/first-anti-fracking-protesters-jailed
I have a feeling when C4 run it will move up thr order on other media sites
Interesting. (Disclosure: retired journo here) This was one of the items (with a 20ish second report from memory) on the hourly Radio 4 news yesterday evening as I drove back from work. The BBC News website is not necessarily representative of the whole of the Beeb's output, just as news programming on the various radio stations and TV channels is unique.
The other thing to note is that most sites are dynamic. Something gets loads of views? move it above the fold. Bit dull? move it down, or add something splashy to give it a lift. This may be why fracking doesn't feature, but some of the Must See content gets higher prevalence. There's a difference between In the public interest and Of interest to the public. what we may well be seeing with the Beeb's news site is an increase in emphasis on the latter. Why is this? Well, that's a very good question to which I suspect none of us has a comprehensive answer. Someone will try, of course. 😉
^ very interesting, still nothing on the main BBC news website.
Regarding the sentence, I imagine there’s a clear message being sent, much like the civil unrest of 10-ish years ago; you **** with us and you’re going to regret it.
According to the Guardian article the govt. overturned the local authority decision not to frack. I’d be asking why this is so important to the present administration and where it’s likely to lead.
Surely fracking goes against The Will Of The People.
Surely fracking goes against The Will Of The People.
So nobody in the UK is in support of fracking? We (the people) complain about high energy prices and yet try to stop a source of cheaper energy. We know that half the stuff being put out by opponents of fracking is a pack of lies, equally we know that half the stuff being put out by the fracking industry is a pack of lies. We don't know how fracking will work in the UK, but it's opponents want to stop all discussion and all trials.
sadmadalan - we do know however how fracking has worked in the US and that leads us to be very cautious / paranoid about it
sadmadalan – we do know however how fracking has worked in the US and that leads us to be very cautious / paranoid about it
Cautious certainly but not paranoid. Fracking in the UK will be quite different from the US.
Not a completely impartial source but the information is pretty straight forward.
https://oesg.org.uk/fracking-at-home-and-abroad-compare-and-contrast/
I'm sure our leaders can manage to sell off the fracking rights for a pittance so that foreign energy companies can stI'll charge us a fortune for our leccy.
I wish someone knew what the frack was going on here.
Never mind that, Bez has broken the rules on Bargain Hunt, front page on BBC website now (after Ryder Cup).
This thread isn't about the pros and cons of fracking but about 2 totally different issues.
Its about a worrying and excessive sentence handed out to three protesters who had broken no other laws and caused no criminal damage and the subsequent lack of coverage by many of our mainstream media outlets including the BBC.
Its about a worrying and excessive sentence handed out to three protesters who had broken no other laws and caused no criminal damage
I agree, if camping on top of a lorry was so terrible why didn't the police remove them immediately ?
Doesn't the judge have sentencing guidelines?
So the sentence given would be within these guidelines, and based on what the judge considered to be suitable for the case. Unless anyone here was in the courtroom, or has read the transcripts, how can anyone say if the sentence was fair or not?,
Doesn’t the judge have sentencing guidelines?
So the sentence given would be within these guidelines, and based on what the judge considered to be suitable for the case. Unless anyone here was in the courtroom, or has read the transcripts, how can anyone say if the sentence was fair or not?,
Pretty much this. The judge has explained why he couldn't give suspended sentences. I'd be amazed if this sentence was incorrect and nobody criticizing it has explained in any detail why it was. The idea of political interference is laughable - I doubt the govt wanted to make martyrs of these people, they'd have preferred not action in the hope it would quietly go way.
The suggestion that this is a cover-up is laughable, it's all over the media, including the BBC.
why didn’t the police remove them immediately ?
Good question. Anyone know? I'd guess it's tricky to get someone off a lorry roof without hurting them but was that the reason?
Not a completely impartial source but the information is pretty straight forward.
Yeah - cos the energy companies always avoid environmental impact, right?
Firstly, Judges get sentencing wrong all the time. How many threads do we have here on motorists causing totally avoidable death and bodily harm to vunerable road users getting off scot free or with minimal punishment. In this case and in answer to your question on why the punishment was incorrect, I think many people are wondering why around 350 previous instances of similar protest (i.e no violence, malicious damage or incitement to riot etc) have been dealt with by suspended sentence and fines whilst this one has led to 3 people of previous good character going to prison for a substantial length of time. Secondly and leading on from this, as it is a significant departure from the norm and very current as Quadrill are to commence operations there in 2 weeks, you would expect it to make the news wih more impact than it had - i.e only being brought up in a column by environmental campaigner in the Guardian like Caroline Lucas.
Is that clear enough @outofbreath?
Is there a petition to get them out?
Indeed, a petition for this is one I'd sign.
Against the will of the people? Most of whom have gas central heating. I'm in favour of fracking. It's a good idea to have better energy security.
As for this being the first time environmental protesters have been jailed? Not if you count anti nuclear protests as environmental. Several protestors at Faslane have been jailed over the years.
As for the sentence in the case. High but a jail sentence of some months probably justified. Faslane protests typically blocked the gates for an hour or two. If an hour blockade is worth a month what is a 99 hour blockade worth. No doubt an appeal court will decide this.
think many people are wondering why around 350 previous instances of similar protest (i.e no violence, malicious damage or incitement to riot etc) have been dealt with by suspended sentence and fines whilst this one has led to 3 people of previous good character going to prison for a substantial length of time.
Blocking roads and preventing trucks moving for 90hrs is hardly no damage...
have been dealt with by suspended sentence
I think that is pretty obvious, if you expect any sort of suspended sentence it is pretty mandatory to say you aren't going to go back out and commit another offence
I think that is pretty obvious, if you expect any sort of suspended sentence it is pretty mandatory to say you aren’t going to go back out and commit another offence
This, the judge said so explicitly.
"Blocking roads and preventing trucks moving for 90hrs is hardly no damage…"
Its not damage, criminal or otherwise. Its economic loss which has a totally different set of sentencing guidelines and criteria for justification of using them.
The best the judge could come up with was 50k loss to Cuidrilla and that the locals had been held up a bit (like that isn't going to happen when Cuidrilla start fracking for real..but anyways..) - and yes, the protesters have expressed no remorse for their actions - so why not a suspended sentence? "Do it again and I will have no alternative than to send you to prison" Seems more in keeping with the crime to me and to quite a few others I've spoken to in the legal profession too.
100s of lorries delivering water , chemicals etc ... ; locals are going to be delighted .
and yes, the protesters have expressed no remorse for their actions – so why not a suspended sentence?
Same reason you go to prison for wilful refusal to pay the council tax...
(From Burnley.gov.uk)
If other methods of trying to recover the money you owe have been unsuccessful then the Council can apply to the Magistrates' Court for you to be committed to prison.
You are required to either pay the total sum due in full or attend the Court hearing as you have been summonsed.
At Court you will have to appear before the Magistrates to explain why the Council Tax has not been paid.
Magistrates will conduct an enquiry into your means at the time the debt became due. You will be required to tell the court of your household income and how that income was spent. If the Magistrates find you guilty of wilful refusal to pay or culpable neglect to pay the Council Tax they may commit you to prison for up to 90 days for each Liability Order that you owe. The Council will also request that the court award costs against you of £305.00 in respect of the committal summons.
That’s a very interesting comparison stevextc, I remember the Poll Tax riots very well. The govt. weren’t particularly interested in the will of the people that time either were they.
(plus a little bump as I’d like to keep this thread active, these are important issues.)
<p>Poll tax isn't Council Tax.</p>
No, and whilst your pedantry is strong, there is a link and my point still stands 😉
Dodgy judgement?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/judge-criticised-jailing-fracking-protesters-13396324
Dodgy judgement?
Well two pages in nobody has been able to state exactly why the sentence failed to conform to sentencing guidelines and several people have been able to state why it wasn't suspended which seems to be the main criticism of the sentence.
Sentences quashed. I wonder if the hang them and flog them brigade will revise their remarks?
Sir Ian Burnett, the lord chief justice, said: “We have concluded that an immediate custodial sentence in the case of these defendants was manifestly excessive.
Since the trio’s convictions, it has emerged that the judge who oversaw their trial has family links to the oil and gas industry.
Dodgy ****.
Looks like sanity has prevailed (eventually).
I’d be amazed if this sentence was incorrect
Well two pages in nobody has been able to state exactly why the sentence failed to conform to sentencing guidelines and several people have been able to state why it wasn’t suspended which seems to be the main criticism of the sentence.
Looks like Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett knows why though:
"Handing down today’s judgment, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: ‘We have concluded that an immediate custodial sentence in the case of these appellants was manifestly excessive.’ Burnett said a community order with a significant requirement of unpaid work would have been an appropriate sentence.
The court will give full reasons for its ruling at a later date."
Outofbreath: "I’d be amazed if this sentence was incorrect "
Lord Chief Justice: "manifestly excessive"
Good news that, the system apparently works.
I like the idea that protestors delaying traffic is to be punished with the mighty fist of the law but when Cuadrilla do it it's all great.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
</div>
original judge should be sacked for not declaring a conflict of interest.
deleted
Original judge should be subject to an investigation and dealt with. Sacked without a pension would be nice, but then no doubt will end up on the board of a fracking company....
According to this report
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/mp-asks-government-investigate-fracking-13407731
the family company
”supplies ships’ stores, including food, tools, rigging equipment and clothes.”
On the basis it supplies equipment to the Offshore O&G industry that won’t be needed onshore. To be honest that doesn’t sound like too much of a conflict of interest to me Hardly Halliburton is it.
That said I did think the sentences were harsh at the time.
he family company
”supplies ships’ stores, including food, tools, rigging equipment and clothes.”
On the basis it supplies equipment to the Offshore O&G industry that won’t be needed onshore. To be honest that doesn’t sound like too much of a conflict of interest to me Hardly Halliburton is it.
You could argue that onshore gas extraction is a competitor to offshore energy extraction and therefore he chose to give “manifestly excessive” sentences in order to make martyrs of the defendants and increase people's objections to onshore gas extraction, which it undoubtedly has.
However, if a judge was *knowingly* giving an excessive sentence you'd think they wouldn't make it so excessive as to be blatantly obvious, You'd imagine the most they could get away with was 'a little bit tougher', unless they're willing to trade their reputation and/or career to have a minuscule impact on their sister's business.
We'll have to wait for Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett's reasoning, unless anyone on this thread wants to (finally) reveal why the sentence was out of line with the sentencing guidelines.
Do judges go through a review process if they have sentences quashed/significantly changed by the court of appeal? I hope so but I somehow think it's more likely it's just a quick chat down the gentleman's club over cigars and port
Do judges go through a review process if they have sentences quashed/significantly changed by the court of appeal?
https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/what-can-i-complain-about/
Seems like somebody has to make a complaint first...
We’ll have to wait for Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett’s reasoning, unless anyone on this thread wants to (finally) reveal why the sentence was out of line with the sentencing guidelines.
I suggest he has a better handle on it than you.
Related?
Within hours of starting there were at least three earthquakes, one of which was very close to the size required to put a halt on any further works.
Related?
Blackpool FY4 is most of those.