Not guilty of obstructing a train

[Gostav]

I'm not convinced that the signal sent from this is a good one, as with all causes they can be taken over by people who just want to cause problems (I'm not sure these were such people in this occasion), but this seems to be an invitation for those sorts of people to do whatever they want and then they can just say 'but it was a climate/BLM protest' when in court and get off.

Maybe until one day someone like Kyle Rittenhouse also appeared in the UK.

If you think about it this way, everything makes sense. Police arresting protesters will be condemned as a dictatorship, so what about letting angry people deal with protesters? In particular, the participants in XR and IB are predominantly white, and imagine if this group had a violent conflict with some group (e.g.minority), they would no longer occupy the moral high ground. Put people against people, and the government only has to wait until one side yells for the police to help, at which point it can justify the use and strengthening of police and government power.

The above is just my personal guess

 

[158747]

Unfortunately this is a sign of the crazy times we are living in right now, these selfish idiots getting away with it. Just like those idiots who pulled down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol got away with it recently. It looks like now people are free to destroy something they disagree with, or protest, inconveniencing normal people without being punished for their actions.

 

[Falcon1200]

None of us on here was, I think, on the jury, so we cannot know what was discussed and how they reached their verdict, but the defendants did, without a shadow of a doubt, obstruct a train but were found not guilty, and I can only assume the reason they were acquitted was their motive rather than their conduct. In which case, is it OK now to shoplift food from Tesco, as long as you then give it to a homeless person, or steal clothes from Marks & Spencer if you donate them to an orphanage ?

 

[Master Cutler]

The question I have is, apart from causing a nuisance have the ptotestors actually achieved anything by delaying a train for publicity? It's a bit like that Swampy chap and the Newbury bye pass, did he stop it being completed? No, but he managed to cause unnecessary extra costs for his own egotistical rewards.
Do we need these people to act this way for a public stunt when we are all aware of our climate predicament?

 

[deltic]

None of us on here was, I think, on the jury, so we cannot know what was discussed and how they reached their verdict, but the defendants did, without a shadow of a doubt, obstruct a train but were found not guilty, and I can only assume the reason they were acquitted was their motive rather than their conduct. In which case, is it OK now to shoplift food from Tesco, as long as you then give it to a homeless person, or steal clothes from Marks & Spencer if you donate them to an orphanage ?

Jury decisions do not set precedents, every case will be heard on its merits. The jury will have been made up of people with as diverse opinions as on this discussion and on this occasion they were not convinced they were guilty.

I recall a case where someone shot a person effectively in an act of revenge where public opinion was very much in favour of thier actions as they felt the legal system had let that person down. The jury found the defendant quilty of illegal procession of a gun but not quilty of shooting the person. The press that supported the jury then are the same press that are deploring juries now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

The question I have is, apart from causing a nuisance have the ptotestors actually achieved anything by delaying a train for publicity? It's a bit like that Swampy chap and the Newbury bye pass, did he stop it being completed? No, but he managed to cause unnecessary extra costs for his own egotistical rewards.
Do we need these people to act this way for a public stunt when we are all aware of our climate predicament?

Yes - it indicates the level of public support or lack of it for certain actions. If protestors have little support the politicians can ignore them knowing there will be no comeback at elections.

We are all aware of our climate predicament but many would argue we are doing much about it.

 

[Falcon1200]

on this occasion they were not convinced they were guilty.

Which, from the outside, is bizarre, given that one of the defendants superglued himself to a train, and others climbed on the roof ! If that does not constitute obstructing a train, I don't know what does.

 

[Master Cutler]

With the number of wind farms and solar panels plus the closure of coal fired power stations I would say we are doing plenty about climate change.

We are all aware of our climate predicament but many would argue we are doing much about it

 

[deltic]

With the number of wind farms and solar panels plus the closure of coal fired power stations I would say we are doing plenty about climate change.

Completely off topic but the present price surge in energy prices shows this is not the case and that is before we have made serious attempt to decarbonise transport and heating

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly a peculiar outcome certainly (I can't imagine I would have reached such a conclusion). However, it doesn't alter my belief in the jury system.

 

[matt_world2004]

The problem with jury nullification for protest is that it means some forms of speech are legally defined as more valuable than others too. I doubt for example someone gluing themselves to a train would have got off if the issue they were protesting about was odious

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm of Christian faith, there's nothing in the new testament that tells anyone to delay DLR trains.
The core belief of love thy neighbour should imply letting trains travel without annoying the passengers on board.
Court made a mistake here, they should be fined, given community work, or a short jail span.
I do support the use of juries fully, but of course they can make mistakes, as can judges.
This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

Trains are the best way to transport massive loads of people efficiently.
If climate change is their concern, they should glue themselves to four wheel drive cars parked on the street.

The Jury didn’t make a mistake, they simply found them (unanimously!) not guilty as indeed they are entitled to do. They simply decided they didn’t want to criminalise otherwise nice people for a very low level offence which caused only inconvenience and not harm.

 

[MattRat]

I just realized why it was the DLR. If it had been a normal train, it would have had a driver, and they may have driven off with them still on the roof, which I'm sort of sad now we didn't get to see.

 

[nanstallon]

With the number of wind farms and solar panels plus the closure of coal fired power stations I would say we are doing plenty about climate change.

Perhaps this is too simplistic. If Britain closes its coal industry, but imports coal from abroad (say, for steam heritage railways), then we are just making ourselves feel better. Closing coal fired power stations means in practice that we have less energy except in so far as we replace the lost capacity by power stations being fuelled by oil or gas (just as bad), nuclear (the lead time for this is very long term) or wind farms/ solar energy, which is dependent on weather conditions. Doing plenty about climate change means adjusting our lifestyle - e.g. reducing the amount of commuting to work that we do.

 

[TwoYellas]

The question I have is, apart from causing a nuisance have the ptotestors actually achieved anything by delaying a train for publicity?

Well, everyone is talking about it I suppose - maybe that was an aim. Especially with them being Church people. A bit different and interesting.

 

[MattRat]

Perhaps this is too simplistic. If Britain closes its coal industry, but imports coal from abroad (say, for steam heritage railways), then we are just making ourselves feel better. Closing coal fired power stations means in practice that we have less energy except in so far as we replace the lost capacity by power stations being fuelled by oil or gas (just as bad), nuclear (the lead time for this is very long term) or wind farms/ solar energy, which is dependent on weather conditions. Doing plenty about climate change means adjusting our lifestyle - e.g. reducing the amount of commuting to work that we do.

I simply don't except that as a solution. We should do better as a society. The only way forwards should be forwards, not backwards to a time when no one went anywhere and the standard of living was worse. If a society doesn't progress, it regresses, and I doubt anyone wants that.

As far the real solution, I don't have the full answers, but I would hope there was someone smart enough to figure out the answers themselves, and propel society to a new age.

 

[gg1]

Quote from the news story "Reverend Sue Parfitt, 79, Father Martin Newell, 54, and former university lecturer Philip Kingston, 85, were unanimously acquitted by a jury at Inner London Crown Court of obstructing the railway following their protest at Shadwell Station on October 17 2019."

Makes you wonder if their ages and the fact they all look 'respectable' influenced the jury's decision. I suspect the verdict would have been different if the accused were three 20something crusties.

 

[Master Cutler]

And there lies the problem, I question their motives, are they genuinely protesting about climate change or are they just getting on the bandwagon (or carriage) as a means of drawing attention to themselves.
As Christians, I'm sure there are more deserving problems they could bring to the public's attention, after all we have the likes of Attenborough and Greta bombarding us with climate doom and gloom.

Well, everyone is talking about it I suppose - maybe that was an aim. Especially with them being Church people. A bit different and interesting.

 

[TwoYellas]

And there lies the problem, I question their motives, are they genuinely protesting about climate change or are they just getting on the bandwagon (or carriage) as a means of drawing attention to themselves.

Why would they do that - money? Seems to me they do it for the reasons they state.

As Christians, I'm sure there are more deserving problems they could bring to the public's attention, after all we have the likes of Attenborough and Greta bombarding us with climate doom and gloom.

Perhaps the 'bombardment' has an extremely important point. I think the attention needs to be on the big industrial countries getting their act together. It seems many only realise the seriousness of the matter when the effects of climate catastrophe is on their doorstep.

 

[MattRat]

Why would they do that - money? Seems to me they do it for the reasons they state.

Perhaps the 'bombardment' has an extremely important point. I think the attention needs to be on the big industrial countries getting their act together. It seems many only realise the seriousness of the matter when the effects of climate catastrophe is on their doorstep.

Isn't the country with th highest greenhouse gas emissions China?

 

[TwoYellas]

Isn't the country with th highest greenhouse gas emissions China?

There is indeed blame to go all round. It's basically a global issue requiring global solutions - this means scientists working together. As I understand it the 3rd world will feel the effects quite quickly, and many areas already are, but more developed countries are also being affected. I think it's high time the governments of countries started listening to those young people that were protesting at COP26.

If I could use an analogy, just because someone else is littering more doesn't mean we shouldn't do nothing about our own rubbish. As I understand it, there are activists worldwide trying to make changes - apparently we are racing toward irreversible damage to, what George Monbiot calls; 'our life support system.'

I'm not condoning blocking ambulances or stuff like that - but personally I blame governments rather than SOME protesters.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

Jury clears Extinction Rebellions activists from obstructing railway

Three Extinction Rebellion activists have been cleared over a 2019 stunt which saw them cause 77 minutes of disruption to a central London train.

www.standard.co.uk

They were strongly motivated by their Christian faith...

I'm of Christian faith, there's nothing in the new testament that tells anyone to delay DLR trains.
The core belief of love thy neighbour should imply letting trains travel without annoying the passengers on board.
Court made a mistake here, they should be fined, given community work, or a short jail span.
I do support the use of juries fully, but of course they can make mistakes, as can judges.
This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

Trains are the best way to transport massive loads of people efficiently.
If climate change is their concern, they should glue themselves to four wheel drive cars parked on the street.

I too, am struggling to find where obstructing a train or indeed, any transport, is mentioned in the New Testament. Personally, I don’t believe these people are true Christians, merely imposters

No it isn't. Just because you, who heard none of the case, have decided it is a "disgrace" does not make it so. You may disagree with the verdict but you have no idea how the decision was reached. The system worked correctly. The jury heard all the evidence and decided to acquit. That is to be respected.

Perhaps you would prefer a Diplock court. Be careful what you wish for.

So does it mean you, who also heard none of the case, are right? It is a disgrace but unfortunately it is not the first time (and won’t be the last) that the courts have let such actions go unpunished.

Just wondering, are you a member or supporter of the mob responsible for holding up this train?

 

[MattRat]

There is indeed blame to go all round. It's basically a global issue requiring global solutions - this means scientists working together. As I understand it the 3rd world will feel the effects quite quickly, and many areas already are, but more developed countries are also being affected. I think it's high time the governments of countries started listening to those young people that were protesting at COP26.

If I could use an analogy, just because someone else is littering more doesn't mean we shouldn't do nothing about our own rubbish. As I understand it, there are activists worldwide trying to make changes - apparently we are racing toward irreversible damage to, what George Monbiot calls; 'our life support system.'

I'm not condoning blocking ambulances or stuff like that - but personally I blame governments rather than SOME protesters.

I just think they could protest in better areas. Say we only talk about Europe, they'd be better off campaigning in Brussels to get the EU to do something, as that would a bigger impact than the individual nations.

 

[Cowley]

I think it’s probably best to thin out some of the various climate change threads in this section. This has been discussed now and there’s not an awful lot more to say.
These two threads cover the subject pretty well anyway:

Why have climate change concerns suddenly increased?

Why has the concerns regarding climate change suddenly became a top priority again? We have known about global warming and carbon emissions for over two decades and it was a important topic back in the early/mid 2000s then died down (at least in politics/media) until the past year or so. Has...

www.railforums.co.uk

How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

A burning question that I wanted to raise is how people are going to be dealing with climate change, which is a very real risk as seen by the horrendous heatwave across America and Canada. How are you going to adapt your lifestyle and way of life to suit the changing climate, it's inevitable...

www.railforums.co.uk