Balcombe fracking protesters 'not given enough arrest warning'

The defendants outside court yesterday

The defendants outside court yesterday

First published in News by , Business editor

Sussex Police gave insufficient warning to peaceful anti-fracking protesters before arresting them, a court was told.

Eleven campaigners are standing trial accused of obstructing the highway during protests against drilling firm Cuadrilla.

The activists were arrested in Balcombe on July 26 outside the drill site gates after being warned they were blocking the access for emergency services.

But defence lawyers told Brighton Magistrates’ Court yesterday that police officers did not give enough warning before making arrests.

Paul Deacon, 50, formerly of Selden Lane, Worthing; Samantha Duncan, 30, of Beaconsfield Villas, Brighton; Ian Freeston, 52, of Phoenix Place, Lewes; Ezra Lynch, 31, of Phoenix Place, Lewes; Mark Mansbridge, 51, of Paddock Road, Lewes; Richard Millar, 30, of Upper Gloucester Road, Brighton; Michael Atkins, 37, of Westbury; Frances Crack, 31, of Cardiff; Justin Preese, 44, of Pontypridd; Marcin Swiercz, 35, of London; and Nancy Walker, 25, of London all deny wilful obstruction of a highway.

Atkins is also accused of assaulting a police constable by throwing tea at her.

Opening the prosecution case, Jonathan Edwards said that a large tree trunk was dragged in front of the gates to the site being test drilled by Cuadrilla, off London Road, which protesters sat on to block access.

The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.

Pressure point techniques were used to force the protesters apart, with onlookers shouting “shame on you!”

Chief Inspector Matthew Webb, commander of police on the ground at Balcombe, said the site was a “hazardous working environment” and needed 24-hour emergency service access.

But he accepted that after arriving at Balcombe at 9am to the log blockade, he did not warn protesters to move until midday, shortly before ordering a first round of arrests. After a second warning he said he ordered further arrests.

Shahida Begum, one of the defence lawyers, said: “Nowhere in your statement does it say you instructed police liaison officers to have formal discussions with protesters. There was no engagement.”

CI Webb said: “If the protesters had not heard my warning then that was because of the noise they were making themselves.”

District Judge William Ashworth must decide if there was an obstruction, if it was wilful and without excuse, and if prosecution was a reasonable response.

The trial continues.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:07am Wed 8 Jan 14

Crystal Ball says...

Really?

Shut up and accept the consequences of your actions.
Really? Shut up and accept the consequences of your actions. Crystal Ball
  • Score: 15

11:22am Wed 8 Jan 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Few of them are local. How are they funding their trips from all over the UK. I hope they are available for work otherwise they could lose any benefits they may be claiming......unless of course they are all the children of middle class wealthy parents who can afford to pay the high energy bills because the UK can no longer provide its own energy.
Few of them are local. How are they funding their trips from all over the UK. I hope they are available for work otherwise they could lose any benefits they may be claiming......unless of course they are all the children of middle class wealthy parents who can afford to pay the high energy bills because the UK can no longer provide its own energy. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

11:23am Wed 8 Jan 14

pachallis says...

Crystal Ball wrote:
Really?

Shut up and accept the consequences of your actions.
@Crystal Ball - they've obviously been to the Caroline Lucas school of activism...

This seems to be that if "peaceful protest" fails to meet your needs you escalate to "civil disobedience" which demands that they accept they are breaking the law. At this point plead that the police were at fault for charging them with the offences in the first place!!!

I have no sympathy for these protesters - none of which are from Balcombe.
[quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: Really? Shut up and accept the consequences of your actions.[/p][/quote]@Crystal Ball - they've obviously been to the Caroline Lucas school of activism... This seems to be that if "peaceful protest" fails to meet your needs you escalate to "civil disobedience" which demands that they accept they are breaking the law. At this point plead that the police were at fault for charging them with the offences in the first place!!! I have no sympathy for these protesters - none of which are from Balcombe. pachallis
  • Score: 7

11:38am Wed 8 Jan 14

The Prophet of Doom says...

This ridiculous claim should be laughed out of court.

On the basis of their putrid whining then any 'victim' should therefore be given prior warning a crime will be committed against them.

Utterly ludicrous and should be treated with the contempt it rightly reserves.
This ridiculous claim should be laughed out of court. On the basis of their putrid whining then any 'victim' should therefore be given prior warning a crime will be committed against them. Utterly ludicrous and should be treated with the contempt it rightly reserves. The Prophet of Doom
  • Score: 10

12:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

ThinkBrighton says...

When the police arrest a criminal do they now have to give them a call and inform that they are coming to arrest them? of course not.
These people were breaking the law, they were arrested and now must face
the consequences however feeble they are.
It would be quite interesting to know who is paying their legal bill.
When the police arrest a criminal do they now have to give them a call and inform that they are coming to arrest them? of course not. These people were breaking the law, they were arrested and now must face the consequences however feeble they are. It would be quite interesting to know who is paying their legal bill. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 8

1:25pm Wed 8 Jan 14

whatone says...

It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for! whatone
  • Score: -11

2:02pm Wed 8 Jan 14

RottingdeanRant says...

whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law? RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 13

2:26pm Wed 8 Jan 14

whatone says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look)

The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction.

Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here!
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?[/p][/quote]Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look) The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction. Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here! whatone
  • Score: -16

3:48pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Andy R says...

whatone wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look)

The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction.

Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here!
Yep...looks like the case is heading for collapse - unless of course all the "star witnesses" of Argus Comments want to turn up with their supposed first-hand, up-close eyewitness accounts of what happened.


Ha
Ha
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?[/p][/quote]Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look) The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction. Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here![/p][/quote]Yep...looks like the case is heading for collapse - unless of course all the "star witnesses" of Argus Comments want to turn up with their supposed first-hand, up-close eyewitness accounts of what happened. Ha Ha Andy R
  • Score: -17

4:31pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pachallis says...

whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'.

I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'.

I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'. I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'. I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'. pachallis
  • Score: 19

4:35pm Wed 8 Jan 14

RottingdeanRant says...

whatone wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look)

The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction.

Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here!
Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters……..
.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?[/p][/quote]Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look) The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction. Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here![/p][/quote]Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters…….. . RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 23

4:36pm Wed 8 Jan 14

whatone says...

pachallis wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'.

I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'.

I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'.
But what if you believe/know you have done nothing wrong?

The law must be shown to have been broken - not the police assuming they can claim what they like without a fair trial.

Further evidence so far seems to reveal that the area had already been closed by the police - hence obstruction does not exist on an already closed area. That is not trying to 'weasel out of it' is it!

So was any law actually broken? And if not why are you already assuming so by your remarks?

I prefer to wait for the outcome!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'. I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'. I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'.[/p][/quote]But what if you believe/know you have done nothing wrong? The law must be shown to have been broken - not the police assuming they can claim what they like without a fair trial. Further evidence so far seems to reveal that the area had already been closed by the police - hence obstruction does not exist on an already closed area. That is not trying to 'weasel out of it' is it! So was any law actually broken? And if not why are you already assuming so by your remarks? I prefer to wait for the outcome! whatone
  • Score: -17

4:51pm Wed 8 Jan 14

whatone says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look)

The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction.

Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here!
Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters……..

�.
I did indeed read the article.

But maybe you ought to be a bit more articulate next time, and explain exactly as to what/who 'saw' referred to in your reply - since you conveniently 'forgot' the words 'The court' in your quote originally!

And did you see said video yourself?

If not, are you qualified to pass comment?
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?[/p][/quote]Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look) The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction. Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here![/p][/quote]Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters…….. �.[/p][/quote]I did indeed read the article. But maybe you ought to be a bit more articulate next time, and explain exactly as to what/who 'saw' referred to in your reply - since you conveniently 'forgot' the words 'The court' in your quote originally! And did you see said video yourself? If not, are you qualified to pass comment? whatone
  • Score: -17

4:55pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pachallis says...

whatone wrote:
pachallis wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'.

I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'.

I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'.
But what if you believe/know you have done nothing wrong?

The law must be shown to have been broken - not the police assuming they can claim what they like without a fair trial.

Further evidence so far seems to reveal that the area had already been closed by the police - hence obstruction does not exist on an already closed area. That is not trying to 'weasel out of it' is it!

So was any law actually broken? And if not why are you already assuming so by your remarks?

I prefer to wait for the outcome!
@whatone - yes- it will be good to see what the outcome of the "fair trial" is.

I do like the reasoning that the area was "closed" - if so then perhaps they shouldn't have been in the area anyway?

And I hope those involved are not claiming "legal aid" (i.e. paid for by my taxes) to support their defense.

But if they really think they weren't doing anything wrong by causing an obstruction then they IMHO deserve anything they get for being so naively stupid.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]@whatone - sorry - I am not one of the 'flog-em brigade'. I am one of the 'if I have done something wrong, I should admit it and take the honorable course of action and accept the penalty brigade'. I am not one of the 'I have done something wrong, but I won't admit it and I'll try so find some way to weasel out of it brigade'.[/p][/quote]But what if you believe/know you have done nothing wrong? The law must be shown to have been broken - not the police assuming they can claim what they like without a fair trial. Further evidence so far seems to reveal that the area had already been closed by the police - hence obstruction does not exist on an already closed area. That is not trying to 'weasel out of it' is it! So was any law actually broken? And if not why are you already assuming so by your remarks? I prefer to wait for the outcome![/p][/quote]@whatone - yes- it will be good to see what the outcome of the "fair trial" is. I do like the reasoning that the area was "closed" - if so then perhaps they shouldn't have been in the area anyway? And I hope those involved are not claiming "legal aid" (i.e. paid for by my taxes) to support their defense. But if they really think they weren't doing anything wrong by causing an obstruction then they IMHO deserve anything they get for being so naively stupid. pachallis
  • Score: 15

4:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pachallis says...

whatone wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
whatone wrote:
It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial...

Beware what you wish for!
No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?
Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look)

The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction.

Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here!
Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters……..


�.
I did indeed read the article.

But maybe you ought to be a bit more articulate next time, and explain exactly as to what/who 'saw' referred to in your reply - since you conveniently 'forgot' the words 'The court' in your quote originally!

And did you see said video yourself?

If not, are you qualified to pass comment?
@whatone - anyone is allowed to pass comment - that is what these web sites are for!

What you seem to want is the restriction of comment when you disagree with the views - are you by any chance a member of the green party?
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: It appears that the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade as represented here wish to live in a country that affords no access to a fair trial... Beware what you wish for![/p][/quote]No,they were warned - 'saw a video of police officers warning protesters that they were breaking the Trade Union and Labour Act by disrupting a workplace.’. So how much time do you need to stop breaking a law?[/p][/quote]Well it seems that the court process has so far revealed that the commander may not have actually given a proper warning despite what you 'saw', and the main 'witness' hasn't turned up...(it's being reported on twitter if you care to look) The whole idea of a trial is so that the actual evidence (not heresay) can be presented, and if it is deemed no offence has actually taken place then there will be an acquital. If it is deemed an offence has taken place then there will be a conviction. Either way, that will happen despite all the ill-informed comments from the 'armchair lawyers' posting here![/p][/quote]Did you read the article? I was quoting from it where it states 'The court saw a video of police officers warning protesters…….. � � �.[/p][/quote]I did indeed read the article. But maybe you ought to be a bit more articulate next time, and explain exactly as to what/who 'saw' referred to in your reply - since you conveniently 'forgot' the words 'The court' in your quote originally! And did you see said video yourself? If not, are you qualified to pass comment?[/p][/quote]@whatone - anyone is allowed to pass comment - that is what these web sites are for! What you seem to want is the restriction of comment when you disagree with the views - are you by any chance a member of the green party? pachallis
  • Score: 18

5:09pm Wed 8 Jan 14

whatone says...

@pachallis

Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself).

It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic!

And what has the green party got to do with it?

You must have run out of anything serious to say!
@pachallis Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself). It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic! And what has the green party got to do with it? You must have run out of anything serious to say! whatone
  • Score: -13

7:40pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pachallis says...

whatone wrote:
@pachallis

Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself).

It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic!

And what has the green party got to do with it?

You must have run out of anything serious to say!
@whatone - ah! The happy memories of last summer when Balcombe was full of protesters and The Argus articles were full of comments from the anti-fracking activists and their inability to accept that others might disagree with their views and having to resort to personal attacks.

Glad to see again the activist followers being encouraged to come to this site and down-vote any negative comments and up-vote those supporting these protesters who think breaking the law without penalty to achieve goals is perfectly okay in a democratically elected country.

Yes, like you, I value the right to make comments about articles and these may well differ from yours but that is the benefit of our freedom.

Are you upset that The Argus posted an article about the trial and allowed comments? Or should court cases join subjects such as travellers and LGBT where comments and views may not be expressed?
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: @pachallis Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself). It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic! And what has the green party got to do with it? You must have run out of anything serious to say![/p][/quote]@whatone - ah! The happy memories of last summer when Balcombe was full of protesters and The Argus articles were full of comments from the anti-fracking activists and their inability to accept that others might disagree with their views and having to resort to personal attacks. Glad to see again the activist followers being encouraged to come to this site and down-vote any negative comments and up-vote those supporting these protesters who think breaking the law without penalty to achieve goals is perfectly okay in a democratically elected country. Yes, like you, I value the right to make comments about articles and these may well differ from yours but that is the benefit of our freedom. Are you upset that The Argus posted an article about the trial and allowed comments? Or should court cases join subjects such as travellers and LGBT where comments and views may not be expressed? pachallis
  • Score: 22

10:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

alyn, southwick says...

whatone wrote:
@pachallis

Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself).

It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic!

And what has the green party got to do with it?

You must have run out of anything serious to say!
@whatone you were not highlighting "the inadequacy in another person's post ", you were clearly questioning their qualification to comment (your words "If not, are you qualified to pass comment?").
I wonder if your own words apply to yourself ("You must have run out of anything serious to say!")
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: @pachallis Just because someone shows up the inadequacy in another person's post does not mean they are trying to 'restrict comment'. (By all means keep on digging that hole for yourself). It does however seem many here do want to restrict access to a fair trial by their presumptious posts - how ironic! And what has the green party got to do with it? You must have run out of anything serious to say![/p][/quote]@whatone you were not highlighting "the inadequacy in another person's post ", you were clearly questioning their qualification to comment (your words "If not, are you qualified to pass comment?"). I wonder if your own words apply to yourself ("You must have run out of anything serious to say!") alyn, southwick
  • Score: 6

9:59am Thu 9 Jan 14

Ambo Guy says...

Not given enough 'arrest warning' !!! What? Am I the only person here who thinks that this is the most ridiculous statement these misguided and naive thugs have come out with yet?

I'm wondering if the Anti Fracking protester who threw boiling water over a female Police Officer's face during the protest have her 'enough warning' that he was about to do it?

These pathetic losers really need to stop saying such idiotic things.
Not given enough 'arrest warning' !!! What? Am I the only person here who thinks that this is the most ridiculous statement these misguided and naive thugs have come out with yet? I'm wondering if the Anti Fracking protester who threw boiling water over a female Police Officer's face during the protest have her 'enough warning' that he was about to do it? These pathetic losers really need to stop saying such idiotic things. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 5

1:42pm Thu 9 Jan 14

whatone says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Not given enough 'arrest warning' !!! What? Am I the only person here who thinks that this is the most ridiculous statement these misguided and naive thugs have come out with yet?

I'm wondering if the Anti Fracking protester who threw boiling water over a female Police Officer's face during the protest have her 'enough warning' that he was about to do it?

These pathetic losers really need to stop saying such idiotic things.
The accusation was about tea being 'thrown', and funnily enough the Officer who apparently suffered such a grievous assault failed to appear!

You already appear to have made your 'judgement' based on your viewpoint of the issue, not the facts presented in court.

Other more fair minded people prefer to listen to the arguments and then make a judgement.

And if an offence requires a warning and there is no warning given, then an offence can't have taken place.

If you don't understand that simple fact then may I suggest you contact your MP and lobby for a change in the law!
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Not given enough 'arrest warning' !!! What? Am I the only person here who thinks that this is the most ridiculous statement these misguided and naive thugs have come out with yet? I'm wondering if the Anti Fracking protester who threw boiling water over a female Police Officer's face during the protest have her 'enough warning' that he was about to do it? These pathetic losers really need to stop saying such idiotic things.[/p][/quote]The accusation was about tea being 'thrown', and funnily enough the Officer who apparently suffered such a grievous assault failed to appear! You already appear to have made your 'judgement' based on your viewpoint of the issue, not the facts presented in court. Other more fair minded people prefer to listen to the arguments and then make a judgement. And if an offence requires a warning and there is no warning given, then an offence can't have taken place. If you don't understand that simple fact then may I suggest you contact your MP and lobby for a change in the law! whatone
  • Score: -4

5:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

whatone says...

Oh dear...

According to the latest reports a lot of prejudiced people on here have egg on their faces today...

Everyone acquitted! (even the non existent 'tea assault' person)

That should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the facts rather than heresay...But the lesson is to wait until those facts are unveiled in court before making your judgement instead of being sucked in by the propaganda!

So to anyone who still maintains the protestors were guilty of 'something' - you will have proved that you do not believe in the rule of law and freedom of speech!

And that is so ironic!

One thing is for sure. The police have let everyone down by acting outside the law and wasted a huge amount of taxpayers' money!

Of course another aspect of this case has also been revealed in court.

Cuadrilla carried on drilling for 2 months after their license had expired.

Why no prosecution for them?

After all, the 'law is the law' for everyone isn't it?
Oh dear... According to the latest reports a lot of prejudiced people on here have egg on their faces today... Everyone acquitted! (even the non existent 'tea assault' person) That should have been obvious to anyone who looked at the facts rather than heresay...But the lesson is to wait until those facts are unveiled in court before making your judgement instead of being sucked in by the propaganda! So to anyone who still maintains the protestors were guilty of 'something' - you will have proved that you do not believe in the rule of law and freedom of speech! And that is so ironic! One thing is for sure. The police have let everyone down by acting outside the law and wasted a huge amount of taxpayers' money! Of course another aspect of this case has also been revealed in court. Cuadrilla carried on drilling for 2 months after their license had expired. Why no prosecution for them? After all, the 'law is the law' for everyone isn't it? whatone
  • Score: -1

7:54pm Thu 9 Jan 14

pachallis says...

@whatone - I'll be very interested to see what the press reports say rather than your, possibly biased, version.

IMHO, just because they were acquitted of the charge of obstruction, possibly on a technicality, by the magistrate does not mean I will change my personal view on the actions that the protesters took, nor on the lack of any real scientific backing to their claims of the dangers of fracking.

But, of course, we are all allowed to have our own views and express them - as indeed you are.
@whatone - I'll be very interested to see what the press reports say rather than your, possibly biased, version. IMHO, just because they were acquitted of the charge of obstruction, possibly on a technicality, by the magistrate does not mean I will change my personal view on the actions that the protesters took, nor on the lack of any real scientific backing to their claims of the dangers of fracking. But, of course, we are all allowed to have our own views and express them - as indeed you are. pachallis
  • Score: 2

9:22pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Ambo Guy says...

Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is.

In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum.
Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is. In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 4

11:03pm Thu 9 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is.

In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum.
Fab

We are encouraging interest for our next Occupy Brighton event, so would welcome involvement from fine people like these on the thread who seem to have attracted a lot of negativity.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is. In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum.[/p][/quote]Fab We are encouraging interest for our next Occupy Brighton event, so would welcome involvement from fine people like these on the thread who seem to have attracted a lot of negativity. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Thu 9 Jan 14

whatone says...

pachallis wrote:
@whatone - I'll be very interested to see what the press reports say rather than your, possibly biased, version.

IMHO, just because they were acquitted of the charge of obstruction, possibly on a technicality, by the magistrate does not mean I will change my personal view on the actions that the protesters took, nor on the lack of any real scientific backing to their claims of the dangers of fracking.

But, of course, we are all allowed to have our own views and express them - as indeed you are.
Whatever you think (as you are entitled to do), the facts speak for themselves.

No crime took place and it wasn't a technical acquital.

And if you look into the case it wasn't a magistrate's decision but a district Judge's.

You have also laid bare your cards in stating your biased view towards fracking, hence why you appear not to believe this acquital is based on the law alone!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @whatone - I'll be very interested to see what the press reports say rather than your, possibly biased, version. IMHO, just because they were acquitted of the charge of obstruction, possibly on a technicality, by the magistrate does not mean I will change my personal view on the actions that the protesters took, nor on the lack of any real scientific backing to their claims of the dangers of fracking. But, of course, we are all allowed to have our own views and express them - as indeed you are.[/p][/quote]Whatever you think (as you are entitled to do), the facts speak for themselves. No crime took place and it wasn't a technical acquital. And if you look into the case it wasn't a magistrate's decision but a district Judge's. You have also laid bare your cards in stating your biased view towards fracking, hence why you appear not to believe this acquital is based on the law alone! whatone
  • Score: -2

12:00am Fri 10 Jan 14

whatone says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is.

In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum.
The only misguided fool here is you!

Whatever you claim, no 'boiling hot tea' (tea now not water I notice) was ever thrown!

You of course will try and justify your prejudiced views with more and more lies, but the fact remains.

The accused were acquited and you refuse to accept the rule of law simply because it doesn't agree with your pig headed opinion!
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Sadly there will always be misguided fools like whatone around. This is the type of person who thinks that throwing boiling hot tea in someone's face is acceptable - what a nasty nasty piece of work he is. In the greater scheme of things he's not very important (could be a 'she' but who knows) as he'll get bored with Fracking and move onto another cause soon so we should all remember that he's just yet another oxygen thief who doesn't really matter. Sadly that doesn't stop him peddling his spin and lies about the Fracking protesters on this forum.[/p][/quote]The only misguided fool here is you! Whatever you claim, no 'boiling hot tea' (tea now not water I notice) was ever thrown! You of course will try and justify your prejudiced views with more and more lies, but the fact remains. The accused were acquited and you refuse to accept the rule of law simply because it doesn't agree with your pig headed opinion! whatone
  • Score: 1

9:38am Fri 10 Jan 14

pachallis says...

@whatone - did you get a refund from the charm school?

Yes - I do disagree with the anti-frackers - most of them having no technical knowledge related to fracking. Look at the list of those who were acquitted - a circus employee, a piano teacher, an ex-page 3 model, and an odd-job man. These were joined in the protests by the daughter of a 70s pop star, a fashion designer, a teacher from Forest Row who seems to teach crystal magic, and an MP who believes in homeopathy.

Whoever the protesters were at Balcombe, I assume they either have rich parents to support their activities, were students on holiday, or are part of the professional unemployables who can afford to spend week after week in a field causing trouble.

You talk of propaganda from the pro-frackers, but this was easily matched by the flagrant misinformation in the progaganda issued by the anti-frackers who when quizzed about the claims thought it was okay to tell un-truths if it backed their argument.

I am still interested to find out what happened to Dame Caroline Lucas - the last I heard was that she was going to Crawley Magistrates court in October?
@whatone - did you get a refund from the charm school? Yes - I do disagree with the anti-frackers - most of them having no technical knowledge related to fracking. Look at the list of those who were acquitted - a circus employee, a piano teacher, an ex-page 3 model, and an odd-job man. These were joined in the protests by the daughter of a 70s pop star, a fashion designer, a teacher from Forest Row who seems to teach crystal magic, and an MP who believes in homeopathy. Whoever the protesters were at Balcombe, I assume they either have rich parents to support their activities, were students on holiday, or are part of the professional unemployables who can afford to spend week after week in a field causing trouble. You talk of propaganda from the pro-frackers, but this was easily matched by the flagrant misinformation in the progaganda issued by the anti-frackers who when quizzed about the claims thought it was okay to tell un-truths if it backed their argument. I am still interested to find out what happened to Dame Caroline Lucas - the last I heard was that she was going to Crawley Magistrates court in October? pachallis
  • Score: 1

10:55am Fri 10 Jan 14

whatone says...

@pachallis

I note that you have resorted to crass stereotypical rhetoric and stupid assumptions because you ignore the facts and have lost the argument!

What a person does has no relevance. You obviously don't understand that ordinary people can become knowledgeable in a particular subject simply because they care. You appear to prefer swallowing anything the so-called experts spoon feed you!

However I shall leave this last summation, attributed to the judge:

'The District Judge found their actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that they acted with dignity. He also suggested that the Police had very bad memories with regard to their evidence.'
@pachallis I note that you have resorted to crass stereotypical rhetoric and stupid assumptions because you ignore the facts and have lost the argument! What a person does has no relevance. You obviously don't understand that ordinary people can become knowledgeable in a particular subject simply because they care. You appear to prefer swallowing anything the so-called experts spoon feed you! However I shall leave this last summation, attributed to the judge: 'The District Judge found their actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that they acted with dignity. He also suggested that the Police had very bad memories with regard to their evidence.' whatone
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ambo Guy says...

whatone wrote:
@pachallis

I note that you have resorted to crass stereotypical rhetoric and stupid assumptions because you ignore the facts and have lost the argument!

What a person does has no relevance. You obviously don't understand that ordinary people can become knowledgeable in a particular subject simply because they care. You appear to prefer swallowing anything the so-called experts spoon feed you!

However I shall leave this last summation, attributed to the judge:

'The District Judge found their actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that they acted with dignity. He also suggested that the Police had very bad memories with regard to their evidence.'
Don't make me laugh - are you actually trying to peddle the lie that the Fracking protesters are actually experts on it? It's amazing how the years of technical knowledge learned by the people who are actually behind the drilling can be learned in a few weeks by a few protesters in between picking up their benefits cheque.

You really are a laughable excuse for a human being.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: @pachallis I note that you have resorted to crass stereotypical rhetoric and stupid assumptions because you ignore the facts and have lost the argument! What a person does has no relevance. You obviously don't understand that ordinary people can become knowledgeable in a particular subject simply because they care. You appear to prefer swallowing anything the so-called experts spoon feed you! However I shall leave this last summation, attributed to the judge: 'The District Judge found their actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that they acted with dignity. He also suggested that the Police had very bad memories with regard to their evidence.'[/p][/quote]Don't make me laugh - are you actually trying to peddle the lie that the Fracking protesters are actually experts on it? It's amazing how the years of technical knowledge learned by the people who are actually behind the drilling can be learned in a few weeks by a few protesters in between picking up their benefits cheque. You really are a laughable excuse for a human being. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Fri 10 Jan 14

whatone says...

Oh dear amboguy

You are the one peddling lies because you are contradicting the results of an open and fair judicial process.

You obviously have no belief in the rule of law when it doesn't suit your uneducated mind!

But you carry on with your infantile insults as it just reinforces the fact that you have lost this argument.

I know its hard for you to take, but that's the risk you run when you shout your mouth off over things you have absolutely no idea about!
Oh dear amboguy You are the one peddling lies because you are contradicting the results of an open and fair judicial process. You obviously have no belief in the rule of law when it doesn't suit your uneducated mind! But you carry on with your infantile insults as it just reinforces the fact that you have lost this argument. I know its hard for you to take, but that's the risk you run when you shout your mouth off over things you have absolutely no idea about! whatone
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree