Fuel crisis???? No diesel.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

12 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Cannot believe the police can sit and watch this happening, trespass is civil until you refuse to leave if asked then it becomes aggravated trespass surely, these idiots are holding people to ransom, what's next water because they don't agree with sewage in the rivers ? Stop the police sitting in their cars persecuting motorists for going 5mph over the limit or sitting in the middle lane on a Motorway and get these parasites moved and fined.

I agree completely, makes you wonder if the Police have an agenda?

Climate activism groups Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion have organised protests and demonstrations designed to block key terminals across the country in protest of the environmental impact of oil and gas.

[JohnfromUK]

28 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Cannot believe the police can sit and watch this happening, trespass is civil until you refuse to leave if asked then it becomes aggravated trespass surely, these idiots are holding people to ransom, what's next water because they don't agree with sewage in the rivers ? Stop the police sitting in their cars persecuting motorists for going 5mph over the limit or sitting in the middle lane on a Motorway and get these parasites moved and fined.

100% agree.  I think in fact "Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out ‘lawful activities’" is aggravated trespass - and stopping delivery drivers and restricting access to business premises meets that definition to me.

20 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I agree completely, makes you wonder if the Police have an agenda?

To put it bluntly, there vis only one agenda the police should have - and that is upholding the law.

[del.gue]

Its easy to criticise the police but, last year a judge ruled that a "certain amount of highway obstruction" is legal in lawful protest. Opening up the police being sued for unlawful arrest, so they have be completely certain of what is and is not legal. So maybe its the law and judiciary that needs taking to task.

Also if you look up the law on Aggravated trespass you will were this can be an offence and were it cannot be an offence.

However, if things carry on as they are i can clashes between these loons and ordinary people trying to go about their business.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

33 minutes ago, del.gue said:

Its easy to criticise the police but, last year a judge ruled that a "certain amount of highway obstruction" is legal in lawful protest. Opening up the police being sued for unlawful arrest, so they have be completely certain of what is and is not legal. So maybe its the law and judiciary that needs taking to task.

Also if you look up the law on Aggravated trespass you will were this can be an offence and were it cannot be an offence.

However, if things carry on as they are i can clashes between these loons and ordinary people trying to go about their business.

So we may as well get rid of the Police then, if it has been deemed legal to protest and stop people getting to work. 

[Dave-G]

11 hours ago, 100milesaway said:

A 4year old vitara, it is the 3rd one I have owned,all have been superb, never let me down and I have had at least 80 thousand  on them when I  renewed. They have all been purchased new, when I  have my spirited head on I  still get 60mpg out of them,but  best of all they never ever need a spanner on them..They get a regular service and have not cost a penny apart from new tyres.

From Auntie.

Cheers - went looking for diesel ones. lol.

[Dave-G]

32 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So we may as well get rid of the Police then, if it has been deemed legal to protest and stop people getting to work. 

The system is broken if a few thoughtless nobodies can legally disrupt the lives of so many decent law abiding citizens. 3 of us got lucky finding diesel to get back from SW Cornwall to leicester with only 14 miles of diesel left while trawling for fuel down there. The car owner had to get back for her work shifts.

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, del.gue said:

Its easy to criticise the police but, last year a judge ruled that a "certain amount of highway obstruction" is legal in lawful protest.

Whilst I agree that it is easy to criticise, the decision to prosecute should be CPS not police.  I would have thought that if the CPS believe that there is sufficient to bring a case - then the police were not unreasonable in making the arrests? 

In addition to the judges, there has also been a problem with both Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter in that despite clear 'direction' from the Judge that criminal damage was committed, the jury has returned not guilty verdicts.  Whilst a certain amount of obstruction may be legal (I'm no law expert), where it is causing widespread public disruption should not be legal.  Similarly - 'a certain amount' of criminal damage should not be legal either.

[del.gue]

54 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Whilst I agree that it is easy to criticise, the decision to prosecute should be CPS not police.  I would have thought that if the CPS believe that there is sufficient to bring a case - then the police were not unreasonable in making the arrests? 

In addition to the judges, there has also been a problem with both Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter in that despite clear 'direction' from the Judge that criminal damage was committed, the jury has returned not guilty verdicts.  Whilst a certain amount of obstruction may be legal (I'm no law expert), where it is causing widespread public disruption should not be legal.  Similarly - 'a certain amount' of criminal damage should not be legal either.

I agree with you. That a not guilty verdict does not mean an illegal arrest.

The problem is that a judge has stated this and that makes things a grey area as to what is "reasonable". It then opens things for HR lawyers to jump in.

I cant believe that those AR idiots who broke the windows on the bank got found not guilty... the law is indeed, an ***.

[manthing]

3 hours ago, del.gue said:

Its easy to criticise the police but, last year a judge ruled that a "certain amount of highway obstruction" is legal in lawful protest. Opening up the police being sued for unlawful arrest, so they have be completely certain of what is and is not legal. 

And here's me thinking Judges judge and government sets laws and they are given the ok by her maj.

What you describe bypasses the point of 2 houses and the Queen. Can a Judge do that?

[del.gue]

14 minutes ago, manthing said:

And here's me thinking Judges judge and government sets laws and they are given the ok by her maj.

What you describe bypasses the point of 2 houses and the Queen. Can a Judge do that?

I can't seem to find the link but a google search can find it.