Scoot!

The Manchester Evening News has just tweeted that Peel, who own the land where iGas are drilling for shale gas at Barton Moss, have been granted a possession order against the protestors. I guess this means eviction.

Comments

[Stuck-Record]

If true it also means a fab opportunity for the greens to stage a lovely victimisation theatre as they are dragged away screaming, "You're hurting my arm, AAAAAARRRGHH!"

BBC producers will already be beside themselves with excitement.

I give it a day before my Facebook feed fills up with calls to arms from my 'friends'.
Evil corporations, rape of the land, toxic, blah blah blah blah blah ...

[Messenger]

" ...and can anyone lend us a wheelchair?"

[Bitter&Twisted]

How long before this "rent a mob" turns up elsewhere as a "local action group"?

Time to pull their benefits, or are most of them "trustafarians" doing their pre BBC/Greenp**s/FOE employment training?

[Sherlock1]

For as long as I could before walking out of the room, I watched the (BBC of course) lady reporter interviewing one of the leaders of the 'Frack Free Manchester' rally on Saturday..
He was spouting so much ridiculous rubbish it just defies logic...
'Fracking causes climate change...'
When the lady reporter timidly suggested that the government says we need the gas, this idiot roared back that it was: 'The last gasp of fossil fuel dinosaurs... renewables are the answer...'
There is no answer for crass stupidity...

[Kevin Marshall]

Online BBC article is at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26512873
BBC local news late last night also reported this eviction. The news bulletin also had a threat from a protestor just to move to somewhere else in the vicinity.

Last month BBC North West also had an extensive summary of oil and gas explorations in the North West
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26271662
It included the following statement about the Elswick, Cumbria site, in bold.

The site was hydraulically fractured in 1993 by a previous owner.

[Rightwinggit]

"The news bulletin also had a threat from a protestor just to move to somewhere else in the vicinity."

How about just parts of him, which could happen when Putin turns off the tap and enrages the population?

Oh, the Somerset levels....shale heavy, that will put the farmers back on their feet!

[DaveB]

The relationship between the EU and environmental NGOs is hinted at in a "Dog That Didn't Bark" sort of way in that there's all hell let loose about tiny sites in the UK but ne'er a squeak about serious plans for very large-scale extraction using the technique in, Gosh, Ukraine. A country for which, I'm told, the EU has A Plan. Well, I never.

See http://fracking.velaw.com/shale-development-in-ukraine/

Next, just for S&Gs, try Googling "Greenpeace + fracking" then "Greenpeace + Ukraine".

[It doesn't add up...]

I suspect that it would be a good idea to have designated protest sites - preferably miles from anywhere, and especially not close to any drillpads. It seems locals fear the impact of protesters far more than of drilling.

[jamesp]

"a possession order against the protestors"

What happened to the law of trespass? You tell people to get out and if they don't, they're breaking it.

[Mike Jackson]

jamesp
My understanding (as regards Scotland so I may be wrong but I believe that the situation in England is similar) is that trespass is not a criminal offence and any action you want to take against individuals trespassing on your land lies in the civil courts.
Scottish law has the wonderful catch-all offence of behaviour likely to lead to breach of the peace. Again I'm not sure whether England has anything similar and the authorities — in my opinion quite rightly, on balance — are reluctant to use the criminal law against lawful protest.
You then start to get into a quagmire around the words 'lawful', 'legal', and 'licit'. As a lawyer friend of mine is fond of saying, "don't go there!"
The activists usually know to within half-a-millimetre what they can get away with legally and how far they can push that beyond the limits of legality in the knowledge that the media will not generally do anything to make them look bad, that a large number if people still will have a level of sympathy for at least the idea behind their action (they only protest where they can argue they hold the moral high ground even where they patently don't), and that they can probably arrange for the police and any other opponent to do something daft that diverts attention.

[NW]

Watch for the catch phrases like "I'm not resisting" as they are dragged off - suggests they have been on a course - professional protestor.

[Stephen Richards]

"a possession order against the protestors"

What happened to the law of trespass? You tell people to get out and if they don't, they're breaking it.

Mar 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

The law of trespass was downgraded many years ago. In medieval england I believe they just killed you. It's a shame that it didn't continue into modern times.

[DocBud]

According to the CPS:

Section 68(1) CJPOA formerly provided that a person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect:

a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

b) of obstructing that activity, or

c) of disrupting that activity.

Section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 amended s 68 by removing the words "in the open air".

Section 69(1) enables the senior police officer present at the scene to order persons to leave the land if he or she reasonably believe they are committing, have committed or intend to commit the offence of aggravated trespass. A person disobeying such a direction or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months commits an offence contrary to s 69(3). As with s 68 the words "in the open air" in s 69 were removed by s 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

The Administrative Court considered the meaning of 'land', following the removal of the words 'in the open air', in DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin). In that case the DPP appealed a decision that the respondents, who had been prosecuted for offences of aggravated trespass and failing to leave the relevant land when directed to do so by a police officer, had no case to answer, the alleged offences having been committed in a building. The Administrative Court found that 'land' in s 68 and s 69 of the amended CJPOA quite clearly included buildings. They remitted the case back to the magistrates' court with a direction to continue the hearing.

The s 68 offence is capable of being committed by hunt saboteurs or motorway protesters or any protesters who are trespassing on land, but it is not formally limited to protest groups.

Any activity falling within conduct described in s 68(1) is covered. Trespassing on land does not, in itself, amount to the commission of the offence: there must be trespassing on land together with the ss (1) additional conduct. It seems that mere presence as a trespasser will not be sufficient. The requirement appears to be for conduct over and above the act of trespassing although a person taking up a position which obstructs the lawful activity may be sufficient to make out the offence.

In Edward Bauer & Ors v DPP [2013] EWHC 634 (Admin), the Appellants appealed a decision of a District Judge convicting them of aggravated trespass following occupation of a store by demonstrators in protest against tax avoidance. The Administrative Court upheld the conviction as the demonstration was an additional act distinct from the trespass and it could be inferred that by demonstrating they intended to intimidate.

This additional conduct can be anything. There is no requirement that the additional conduct should itself be a crime, so activities such as playing a musical instrument or taking a photograph could fall within anything. What limits the scope of anything is the intention that must accompany it: the intention to obstruct, disrupt or deter by intimidating. Ramblers for instance, may trespass, and may disrupt a lawful activity (for example, rounding up sheep) by doing so, but unless they have the relevant intention, they do not commit the offence. Proof of this specific intent is necessary for conviction. It is no defence that the intent was not fulfilled (Stones: 8-24907).

Which rather raises the question: why do the police not arrest and charge more protesters?

[Leon0112]

Interesting situation in the US. No protestors in North Dakota where abundant fracking is happening. Keystone pipeline protestors are in DC, not along pipeline route. US protestors seem to go where the cameras are. Not as fussed about being "on site".

[Sherlock1]

Last Sunday, in that cracking weather (presumably a result of climate change), my family and I wandered down Common Lane in Hemingford Abbots, near Cambridge
Now, for those of you not familiar with the area, Common Lane is not 'common' - far from it - it has houses in the OhmyGodlookatthat category - but it leads to a... common.
On the gate is a sign which reads (roughly): 'Dogs found worrying livestock may be shot..'
If only - you know where I'm going with this....