EDF sues Brighton power plant activist (From The Argus)

Without public protest, democracy is dead. Every successful challenge to excessive power begins outside the political chamber. When protest stops, it becomes a conversation between different factions of the elite. EDF is largely owned by the French government.
EDF's action is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a SLAPP.....a slap around the ear of democracy.
The backlash against this arm of the French state, seeking to alter the course of British politics by ruining those who participate, is building rapidly ...sign the petition here:
http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/te
ll-edfenergy-to-drop
-legal-action-agains
t-no-dash-for-gas-ac
tivists

Good.

Peaceful protest is a right to be protected but this appears far beyond this

The protesters have used quite aggressive techniques to get their point across. EDF are using similar aggressive techniques to show their opposition. Not ideal - but you shouldn't play with fire if you don't want to get burned

EDF won't get much money if they win - but presumably it's about deterring others from using such aggressive techniques.

I should think the only people that will benefit in the long run will be the legal teams that get paid thousands...again.

SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands.
Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh.
Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers' rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Those who might have joined the campaign are frightened off. Those who might have become active in other campaigns avoid politics altogether for fear of the consequences.
Their absence impoverishes democracy.
The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored.
So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week.
What, please tell, is aggressive about that?

We will be changing our energy supplier (EDF)!

dawind wrote:
SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands.
Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh.
Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers' rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Those who might have joined the campaign are frightened off. Those who might have become active in other campaigns avoid politics altogether for fear of the consequences.
Their absence impoverishes democracy.
The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored.
So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week.
What, please tell, is aggressive about that?

So what you're saying is that when the campaigners are ignored they step up their action

From letters, to marches, lobbies and then to breaking into and occupying infrastructure. As this hasn't worked - what next? Arson, violence against people?

As this is escalating then you can understand why EDF is taking action before the next step is taken.


As for is this aggression? Well the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning

I repeat non-violent demonstration and protest is a right. Stopping power production, power that is vital to us all, is not a right

NickBtn wrote:

dawind wrote:
SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands.
Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh.
Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers' rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Those who might have joined the campaign are frightened off. Those who might have become active in other campaigns avoid politics altogether for fear of the consequences.
Their absence impoverishes democracy.
The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored.
So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week.
What, please tell, is aggressive about that?

So what you're saying is that when the campaigners are ignored they step up their action

From letters, to marches, lobbies and then to breaking into and occupying infrastructure. As this hasn't worked - what next? Arson, violence against people?

As this is escalating then you can understand why EDF is taking action before the next step is taken.


As for is this aggression? Well the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning

I repeat non-violent demonstration and protest is a right. Stopping power production, power that is vital to us all, is not a right

Of course direct action is justified at times, this is sadly how progress has been achieved; be it Suffragetes gaining the vote for women, Poll tax riots, Trade Union members struggles to improve working conditions and now we have climate change.

Direct action seems fine for states, in our case Iraq and Afganistan but not on an individual basis against climate change and fat contracts for multinationals. Lets not forget these corporations have a direct line to government secure their business and profits and they apparently have sway over the police.

NickBtn wrote:

dawind wrote:
SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands.
Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh.
Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers' rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Those who might have joined the campaign are frightened off. Those who might have become active in other campaigns avoid politics altogether for fear of the consequences.
Their absence impoverishes democracy.
The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored.
So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week.
What, please tell, is aggressive about that?

So what you're saying is that when the campaigners are ignored they step up their action

From letters, to marches, lobbies and then to breaking into and occupying infrastructure. As this hasn't worked - what next? Arson, violence against people?

As this is escalating then you can understand why EDF is taking action before the next step is taken.


As for is this aggression? Well the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning

I repeat non-violent demonstration and protest is a right. Stopping power production, power that is vital to us all, is not a right

Protest is of no democratic value unless it is effective. It must disturb and challenge those at whom it is aimed. It must arouse and motivate those who watch.
You state "the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning "
By what logic is 'climbing up a chimney and refusing to come down' in way any 'aggression' as you so define?
Of course, it is permissible to escalate protest into violence.. just look at the Suffragettes... or those movements which have to repel violent invaders from their land (take your pick from) Vietnam, Palestine, East Timor or any of the Central American states.
However I digress.
In this case aggression is being shown by a multi-national towards peaceful protesters using a tactic called SLAPP, as I outline above.
I have no idea where your assertion that these protesters have used 'aggressive techniques' has come from as this is not in dispute with the case.
I suspect that it is a ploy to strengthen a political agenda that you pursue, an agenda that your prepared to lie for, and because of this, you have earned nothing but my contempt.

dawind wrote:

NickBtn wrote:

dawind wrote:
SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands.
Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh.
Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers' rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Those who might have joined the campaign are frightened off. Those who might have become active in other campaigns avoid politics altogether for fear of the consequences.
Their absence impoverishes democracy.
The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored.
So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week.
What, please tell, is aggressive about that?

So what you're saying is that when the campaigners are ignored they step up their action

From letters, to marches, lobbies and then to breaking into and occupying infrastructure. As this hasn't worked - what next? Arson, violence against people?

As this is escalating then you can understand why EDF is taking action before the next step is taken.


As for is this aggression? Well the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning

I repeat non-violent demonstration and protest is a right. Stopping power production, power that is vital to us all, is not a right

Protest is of no democratic value unless it is effective. It must disturb and challenge those at whom it is aimed. It must arouse and motivate those who watch.
You state "the definition is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront" - this direct action seems to meet that meaning "
By what logic is 'climbing up a chimney and refusing to come down' in way any 'aggression' as you so define?
Of course, it is permissible to escalate protest into violence.. just look at the Suffragettes... or those movements which have to repel violent invaders from their land (take your pick from) Vietnam, Palestine, East Timor or any of the Central American states.
However I digress.
In this case aggression is being shown by a multi-national towards peaceful protesters using a tactic called SLAPP, as I outline above.
I have no idea where your assertion that these protesters have used 'aggressive techniques' has come from as this is not in dispute with the case.
I suspect that it is a ploy to strengthen a political agenda that you pursue, an agenda that your prepared to lie for, and because of this, you have earned nothing but my contempt.

Perhaps I'm winning the argument as you've resorted to name calling and claiming that I'm lying?

Yes, direct action has a place in extreme circumstances but we are far from this point and significant movement has come from all the parties on climate change. The UK has moved more than most other countries

Great quote from the local Labour MP on the protest (source: Guardian website)

John Mann, the local Labour MP for Bassetlaw, said: "The protesters should clear off and get back down south. They are obviously people with a lot of time on their hands and they are not from this area. If they really practiced what they preached they would have walked to the plant. The local community have warmly welcomed the gas turbine development and it is the voice of these local people that count."

The Protesters have not been charged with using any aggression in pursuing their right to protest. You haven't supplied any sources for your assertion that they used aggressive techniques ergo you made them up..ergo you lied.
It is not about what the local MP thinks about the protest, it is a about the use of using SLAPP's as a tool for suppressing peoples ability to protest. You now agree with me that direct action is permissible, a view that you previously denied.
As you said in your earlier comment and I quote " you shouldn't play with fire if you don't want to get burned".
You're a buffoon; not a statement I make because, as you wrongly suggest, I'm losing the argument, but made because your very words prove it to be correct.

dawind wrote:
The Protesters have not been charged with using any aggression in pursuing their right to protest. You haven't supplied any sources for your assertion that they used aggressive techniques ergo you made them up..ergo you lied.
It is not about what the local MP thinks about the protest, it is a about the use of using SLAPP's as a tool for suppressing peoples ability to protest. You now agree with me that direct action is permissible, a view that you previously denied.
As you said in your earlier comment and I quote " you shouldn't play with fire if you don't want to get burned".
You're a buffoon; not a statement I make because, as you wrongly suggest, I'm losing the argument, but made because your very words prove it to be correct.

Sir, for I'm sure it must be (or,dawind- if you prefer the anonimity afforded by such a tag)
While I agree with your viewpoint and, therefore acknowledge that you have imparted sound advice, I do take issue with your supercillious nature, and ascertain that, sadly, you are seeking approval and acceptance. rather than a conversation. Give yourself a break gorgeous x

Are the 6th Form politics discussion group on half term?

Hole-in-the-wall wrote:

dawind wrote:
The Protesters have not been charged with using any aggression in pursuing their right to protest. You haven't supplied any sources for your assertion that they used aggressive techniques ergo you made them up..ergo you lied.
It is not about what the local MP thinks about the protest, it is a about the use of using SLAPP's as a tool for suppressing peoples ability to protest. You now agree with me that direct action is permissible, a view that you previously denied.
As you said in your earlier comment and I quote " you shouldn't play with fire if you don't want to get burned".
You're a buffoon; not a statement I make because, as you wrongly suggest, I'm losing the argument, but made because your very words prove it to be correct.

Sir, for I'm sure it must be (or,dawind- if you prefer the anonimity afforded by such a tag)
While I agree with your viewpoint and, therefore acknowledge that you have imparted sound advice, I do take issue with your supercillious nature, and ascertain that, sadly, you are seeking approval and acceptance. rather than a conversation. Give yourself a break gorgeous x

An accurate if unflattering comment; my bad..Thank you gorgeous x

This is the SAME EDF who are enjoying RECORD PROFITS thanks to putting up bills some 30% in the past YEAR ALONE, having raised prices at least 10% each previous year for a long time.


There can be NO question. Anyone who claims to "support" this latest sickening action by them can only have vested interests in them scavenging off of the poor - you do the math who that would be..TORIES.