"Just stop oil"

[Hagar]

Interestingly I lived somewhat near sizewell in the past you would be surprised in effect how little evidence of police there is.
Although the ones there are armed, you hardly saw any.

There probably isn't really that many there in reality.
I suspect getting access to the site would be relatively easy (although likely detected, so what you gonna do now type scenario). But getting access to anything sensitive would be significantly harder. Much like my local airbases who seem to have very similar levels of perimeter defence etc

Edit to add, I believe the police on the site were external to the local police as well. The nuclear police maybe?

Having gone through the process of legitimately gaining access to Sellafield, I can assure that the process is rigorous and lengthy.

Also on one occasion a colleague and I having gained access to the site and wearing our passes had a slack period and decided to take the tourist bus tour. We were quickly identified and hauled off the bus with a stern talking to.

The police are indeed seperate to the county police force and take no prisoners. They are routinely armed and trained on the in house range facility.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Having gone through the process of legitimately gaining access to Sellafield, I can assure that the process is rigorous and lengthy.

Also on one occasion a colleague and I having gained access to the site and wearing our passes had a slack period and decided to take the tourist bus tour. We were quickly identified and hauled off the bus with a stern talking to.

The police are indeed seperate to the county police force and take no prisoners. They are routinely armed and trained on the in house range facility.

I meant easy as in it from memory wasn't that secure a fence, like many military bases etc, but you would be detected and it would be a somewhat short (and painful) admittance I suspect .
Then a nice stand up in front of a magistrate.

 

[sidimmu]

From The Guardian:

Windfarms can reduce house prices by up to 12%, says LSE​

Findings contrast with earlier study – and will fan homeowners' demands for compensation when windfarms are approved


https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/08/windfarms-reduce-house-prices-compensation#comments
352
Large windfarms can knock as much as 12% off the values of homes within a 2km radius, and reduce property prices as far as 14km away, according to research by the London School of Economics. The findings contrast sharply with a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in March, which found no negative impact on property prices within a 5km radius of a turbine.
The LSE findings will fan demands by homeowners for compensation when windfarm developments are given the go-ahead. Currently, windfarm operators pay rent on the land they occupy and make contributions to community causes, but are under no legal obligation to compensate homeowners for loss of value.

Got anything a little more recent to back up your claim?

As someone who lives within 5 miles of a landfill, recycling plant, tip, tarmac factory and two ports. None of them have had any form of negative impact on house prices in the area.

 

[Bazzards]

How would you know if they have always been there? Your house prices might 15-20% higher if those sites weren’t there.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

True

Anything deemed negative will have an impact on house prices.
As I said many things would.

Its just the reality of the world.

The natural consequence of on land wind turbines is they are likely to be more remote and in more picturesque places.
So there is still likely to be some impact.

We can't however just not build anything anywhere. Hence the term NIMBY.

Maybe part of energy bills should be distance based to generation.
Living 150 miles away and having a 250% premium to bills may make having some share of the local generation locally a little more appealing

 

[sidimmu]

How would you know if they have always been there? Your house prices might 15-20% higher if those sites weren’t there.

Might be best to hit reply so I know you are replying to me.

Landfill, recycling plant and one port have all been added within the last 10 years and it has had zero impact on house prices in the area, nor do surrounding areas outside of the catchment so to say have a large percentage difference compared to being within this catchment.

I do hear your point about if they have always been there, which is fair. But this is not the case, the area is expensive in and out of it. What I am trying to say is, regardless of those sites and activities, the prices for the area would still be as high as they are. Would they be higher?

House's on street behind me go for around 330k minimum.
Houses 10 miles away in a nicer area go for 350k minimum.
Yes there is a difference, its no where near a sensible percentage difference though for the undesierable activites.

 

[Feek]

Spotted this in the current Eye.

 

[adam cool dude]

Barrister 'proud' to prosecute Just Stop Oil activists who shut Dartford Crossing

Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker found guilty of causing 'significant nuisance' to public

www.telegraph.co.uk

I will laugh if these do get prison time. They will have a long time to think about what they have done whilst picking up the soap.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Barrister 'proud' to prosecute Just Stop Oil activists who shut Dartford Crossing

Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker found guilty of causing 'significant nuisance' to public

www.telegraph.co.uk

I will laugh if these do get prison time. They will have a long time to think about what they have done whilst picking up the soap.

If somebody has posted this apologies but there's the significant fact that a lot of Lawyers won't prosecute:
It comes weeks after more than 100 eminent lawyers pledged to sign a “declaration of conscience”, meaning they may not prosecute eco-protesters hauled before the courts. High-profile lawyers including Joylon Maugham KC and Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC were among the signatories.

I'm glad that one of them has seen sense.
I saw a debate on this on GMB and a female Lawyer was arguing that as Lawyers they are there to do a job and not take sides.
On the other side you've probably got the same Lawyers who will happily earn money out of defending scum.

 

[robj20]

If somebody has posted this apologies but there's the significant fact that a lot of Lawyers won't prosecute:
It comes weeks after more than 100 eminent lawyers pledged to sign a “declaration of conscience”, meaning they may not prosecute eco-protesters hauled before the courts. High-profile lawyers including Joylon Maugham KC and Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC were among the signatories.

I'm glad that one of them has seen sense.
I saw a debate on this on GMB and a female Lawyer was arguing that as Lawyers they are there to do a job and not take sides.
On the other side you've probably got the same Lawyers who will happily earn money out of defending scum.

I think medical professionals should do similar then. Stop treating criminals.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Adam King, I salute you. One has to search for a none politically liberal aligned barrister these days, and it's good to see some are still practising. I will search out Sweet & Maxwell’s “The Law of Artificial Intelligence” to read his input into that publication. If I enter the world of crypto currency crime he's the guy to try to get me out of doing porridge

 

[fez]

Lawyers not prosecuting climate activists seems utterly bizarre for a profession that is tasked with trying to get criminals out of convictions even when they know 100% they are guilty. Its not like they turn around and say "I think you did it so I can't in good conscience try and help to avoid punishment".

I understand what they are saying but its just a really weird thing to stand for in their profession.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I think medical professionals should do similar then. Stop treating criminals.

I wish I didn't get Clinical Negligence claims on my desk from criminals, some who have done despicable stuff.

 

[Malevolence]

I wish I didn't get Clinical Negligence claims on my desk from criminals, some who have done despicable stuff.

Had to take a patient and his guards down to A&E CT a few weeks back. This chap was double cuffed, leg cuffed and had a large leather belt on with chains going to both prison officers. This guy was not a nice person, his crimes were brutally abhorrent, and I spent the entire journey winding him up.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I can imagine some need taking to the morgue and then given a reason for being there to be honest.

 

[dowie]

I saw a debate on this on GMB and a female Lawyer was arguing that as Lawyers they are there to do a job and not take sides.
On the other side you've probably got the same Lawyers who will happily earn money out of defending scum.

Yeah, it's bizarre, they're supposed to have a cab rank rule etc. so as to automatically assign the heinous defence cases like rapists and murderers.

Seems a bit odd in comparison to suddenly turn into conscientious objectors when it comes to prosecuting some misguided climate activists for relatively minor offences.

 

[PlacidCasual]

The cab rank rule seems an essential part of ensuring a free and fair justice system which is the fundemental building block of democracy. Barristers are becoming a danger to democracy.

 

[CapitalOne]

The cab rank rule seems an essential part of ensuring a free and fair justice system which is the fundemental building block of democracy. Barristers are becoming a danger to democracy.

Who crapped in your handbag? Fundamental building blocks of democracy also include:

Not lying
Not being bought
Not being able to get away with it.

And that’s just the politicians. At least the lawyers are honest about their motives.

 

[PlacidCasual]

Who crapped in your handbag? Fundamental building blocks of democracy also include:

Not lying
Not being bought
Not being able to get away with it.

And that’s just the politicians. At least the lawyers are honest about their motives.

Nope they're all parts of a free and fair justice system. If Parliament makes laws we should expect those laws to be applied impartially. Now I'm not going to pretend things work perfectly now all of those things happen. But Barristers failing to support the mechanism at it's fundemental level only makes it worse.

 

[CapitalOne]

Nope they're all parts of a free and fair justice system. If Parliament makes laws we should expect those laws to be applied impartially. Now I'm not going to pretend things work perfectly now all of those things happen. But Barristers failing to support the mechanism at it's fundemental level only makes it worse.

You’re picking and choosing. I would agree if it was all barristers, or we were in a sterile environment, neither of which are true. I’d suggest this is an excuse for idealogical posturing, but that’s just my interpretation.

Would be interested if you hold the same position wrt to upholding international human rights laws for immigrants? (that’s for Wilson’s thumb )

@PlacidCasual in case I buggered up that quote