Friday
Sep062013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Section 14 for Balcombe protestors
Sep 6, 2013 Energy: gas Greens Greenshirts in Balcombe have blocked the main London road past the site and have won themselves a Section 14 order, under the Public Order Act 1986. This basically tells protestors where and when they are allowed to assemble, the conditions on the order's use being essentially that the protest is causing a disruption to the law-abiding section of society.
This means they have to get off the road or face fines and/or imprisonment, although by the looks of it, not nearly long or large enough, respectively.
Reader Comments (19)
If a tw@t wants to perch on a 15ft high tripod in the middle of the 60mph road, then just two verbal warnings should be given. Then a heavy SUV should be driven at 60mph along that road. I suspect there'd be no shortage of volunteer drivers.
Ho hum..... does this still qualify as news? Even the Guardian has lost interest.
'Greenshirts' is very good.
Sep 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Jack Savage
The Guardian is embarrased by their antics.
What a shame we don't still deport the scum to the colonies.
One good thing has come out of the Balcombe protests. No other village or town in the country will want to stop fracking if they see the mess and noise and disruption caused - by the protesters.
Some of the protesters profiled a week or two back might benefit from being detained under Section 4 of a somewhat different Act...
...from 1983.
Most of these morons are living out of our back pockets.
It would be a salutary lesson to them (and any others contemplating this sort of anti-social behaviour) if their benefits were stopped.
It would also be a reminder that the public's largesse is a privilege not a right!
'He added: “This is unacceptable and we have now taken action to define an area where peaceful protest will be facilitated today.”'
So in a sense they have actually been 'sectioned' off.
Yertizz (Sep 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM):
You are so-o-o-o wrong – benefits are their rights, their Divine Rights, as postulated in the Book of Gramsci et al. Not for them the mere drudgery of earning a living and contributing to the common good; that is for the peasantry, who they expect to be taxed to the hilt in order to fund their holy cause.
"What a shame we don't still deport the scum to the colonies."
Noooooooooo! Canada has too make crazy greenies as it is.
Ian E: "What a shame we don't still deport the scum to the colonies."
Bruce: "Noooooooooo! Canada has too make crazy greenies as it is."
I admit it would be a bit harsh on Jo Nova and Donna Laframboise, among many others, if we were to reward their efforts in this way. I do have a philosophical question, though. If someone is transported to Australia, say, does that count as his/her own carbon footprint?
If these Medieval morons want to live like 14th Century peasants, let them.
Just not subsidised by the Taxpayer.
A ten year stint of subsistence farming on St Kilda sounds just about right.
Don Keiller (Sep 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM):
Ah, but they insist that we have to join them - after all, somebody has to keep them in the money.
Your final sentence is an excellent idea.
As many other commenters have pointed out, the original Green movement was sensible and informed. It protested against waste and real pollution, such as nuclear or industrial waste pollution. CO2 was just a life giving trace gas, Now it has been high jacked by neo -fascists, yes as you say Greenshirts. These idiots are breaking the law, time and time again, and the time has come for police to come down hard.
I feel for the residents of Balcombe - the area must be looking like aftermath of an illegal rave...
Er - yes, I suppose that's what it is...
Nah. Manning the strategic island of Rockall against a French invasion would be better.
I'm trying to think, with my driller's hat on, what it would be like going to work on a rig every day and being hampered by these people. I've taken a look at the Greenpeace "28 days blockade" Facebook page ... the mind boggles.