Climate protests in London

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Meanwhile a climate change activist has been forcibly removed from the roof of an underground train, not by TPTB^▸ ('the powers that be') but by a crowd of enraged commuters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50079716

Whilst I have some sympathy with the disrupting of carbon intensive air and road transport, to obstruct electric trains seems simply daft, and I have more sympathy with the underground passengers than with the protesters in this case.

There seems to be a growing view that "climate change activist" is simply the latest re-branding of the numerous protest groups that seem to exist primarily to stop people earning a living.
I expect considerable public anger if those passengers who removed the protesters from the train roof, are subjected to the full force of the law, whilst those who climbed onto the train get away with it.

Well one lot of protesters who climbed atop a train HAVE got away with it. Acquitted by jury.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/priests-acquitted-over-extinction-rebellion-train-roof-protest-in-london-z0cfjpjsk

I disagree with the verdict of the jury, it seems to me that the jury voted in line with their own views on and concerns about climate change, and ignored the facts which seemed clear cut to me.

I remain sympathetic to extinction rebellion in general, but can not support delaying and obstructing electric public transport. XR^▸ (Crossrail) should be ENCOURAGING greater use of this, not deterring use by disruption.

[Bmblbzzz]

As has been demonstrated with the Colston Four verdict – and countless times over several centuries – a jury is entitled to bring what is called a 'perverse verdict'. Having delivered the verdict, that's it, unless fresh evidence is presented. It's very difficult to know the jury's reasoning and they're not obliged to explain (in fact I think they're not allowed to). Also as seen in the Colston Four trial, the fact of having done something does not necessarily mean guilt; there are often defences. In the case of a charge of criminal damage, causing damage to prevent a crime which you believe is being committed – it does not have to actually be committed, belief is sufficient – was a defence. In this case, I see the right to protest under the HRA is mentioned.

[broadgage]

What has it got to do with the Heritage Railway Association  Not aware of climate change protesters climbing atop heritage trains, or gluing themselves thereto.

[TonyK]

What has it got to do with the Heritage Railway Association  Not aware of climate change protesters climbing atop heritage trains, or gluing themselves thereto.

If they did, they would have to use heritage fishbone glue, or just possibly Uhu or Bostick.