Should BBC presenter revealed the MP was in US on holiday

Thank you for the information Wyllow.

Ilovecheese

Mr Sunak's action will be bad for our planet. Greenpeace 's action was not.

That doesn’t make what they did acceptable on any level. They will lose a lot of support as a result of this, which is completely counter productive.
DEFRA have now been ordered to cut ties with them, what good is that going to do their cause?

I used to support Greenpeace action...however, if going onto anyone's private property or garden, without my consent, is a breach of privacy/trespass..my home is my sanctuary...this should be respected...

Mr Sunak's action will be bad for our planet. Greenpeace 's action was not.

Rishi Sunak's action was legal.
That of Greenpeace was not.

Mr Sunak announced hundreds of new licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction on Monday.

That triggered the action by the environmental activists.

Quite a lot of info on this page (sky new chosen as middle ground)
news.sky.com/story/greenpeace-defends-rishi-sunak-home-protest-as-proportionate-response-to-a-disastrous-decision-12933491

With all the hoohaa over the climbing on to the Sunak’s house, it has completely eluded me as to what they were actually protesting about. I used to support them in the old days when the women camped at Greenham Common, but we haven’t heard anything about them recently. What were they protesting about?

Anniebach

Really Wyllow not harming anyone is central to my beliefs

Yes, I appreciate that and hold that to be important too.

I think the disagreement is around whether harm was caused.

Casdon

They were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage and public nuisance. Currently on police bail, the case remains open for further investigations.
That might be just you who wouldn’t mind somebody climbing on your roof and draping your house with banners MaizieD. Most people would be justifiably upset.

I rather suspected that that would be the case but the criminal damage would have to be proved and what if there wasn't any?

Public nuisance doesn't look very promising either, but I'm sure something will be cobbled together to justify a prosecution.

wiglaw.co.uk/unreasonable-interference/

Really Wyllow not harming anyone is central to my beliefs

All the things you mention Wyllow3 tho a nuisance to some aren’t the same as targeting somebody’s house.
Peaceful marches and camping around Greenham Common are one thing and climbing onto a private house is another, especially when the owner is important in the public eye and already could be in danger from all kinds.
Extremists don’t care or consider the harm they may be doing of course.Greenpeace aren’t as bad as the Just Stop Oil crazies tho.

Anniebach

Wyllow which laws are morally justified to break ?

Completely case dependant, Anniebach, but not harming those innocent of evil is central to beliefs.

Ie could never agree with Stop Oil stopping motorway ambulances etc: however my whole family was involved in CND "illegal" actions to raise awareness of nuclear missiles I fully supported the Faslane Peace Camp and Greenham Common protests.

Wyllow3

Casdon

Wyllow3

They also did no damage and did not enter the property.

Sometimes breaking the law is justified morally as long as no one is harmed. (Quaker values)

I don’t agree. The property includes the grounds and the exterior of the house. It’s breaking the law, and private property should be sacrosanct in that respect.

We would not have the freedom to walk in many beautiful parts of the country if the Kinder Trespass had not happened in the 1930's when ordinary people broke the law and walked on Private Land.

History is littered with Law Breaking involved when something is felt very strongly what happened is needful of change.

If it were some relatively trivial political concern I wouldn't feel so strongly, but climate change is a "real and present danger" for our world and our children's children.

Greenpeace almost without fail act responsibly but do break the law on occasion.

Its a case by case decision as to what is morally right balanced with consequences as far as I'm concerned

That is not the same thing as climbing on somebody’s roof. I know about the Kinder Trespass, it was over farmland, right to roam. Yes, private property but it didn’t impinge on homes.

Casdon

I am in no way as Sunak supporter. I feel strongly about this whoever private property belongs to. I can’t help thinking politics is overcoming rationality for some people.

I agree with your comment.

Unfair to target somebody’s house in this way. It could ( def would in my case) make Mrs Sunak and the children nervous of being there in the future.

They were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage and public nuisance. Currently on police bail, the case remains open for further investigations.
That might be just you who wouldn’t mind somebody climbing on your roof and draping your house with banners MaizieD. Most people would be justifiably upset.

We are free to walk into anyone’s garden whenever we wish ?

Casdon

Wyllow3

They also did no damage and did not enter the property.

Sometimes breaking the law is justified morally as long as no one is harmed. (Quaker values)

I don’t agree. The property includes the grounds and the exterior of the house. It’s breaking the law, and private property should be sacrosanct in that respect.

We would not have the freedom to walk in many beautiful parts of the country if the Kinder Trespass had not happened in the 1930's when ordinary people broke the law and walked on Private Land.

History is littered with Law Breaking involved when something is felt very strongly what happened is needful of change.

If it were some relatively trivial political concern I wouldn't feel so strongly, but climate change is a "real and present danger" for our world and our children's children.

Greenpeace almost without fail act responsibly but do break the law on occasion.

Its a case by case decision as to what is morally right balanced with consequences as far as I'm concerned

Wyllow which laws are morally justified to break ?

Wyllow3

Did it occur in this case?

They'll probably magic up lots of servants staff suffering from irreparable trauma at having the house roof climbed on...

Casdon

Wyllow3

They also did no damage and did not enter the property.

Sometimes breaking the law is justified morally as long as no one is harmed. (Quaker values)

I don’t agree. The property includes the grounds and the exterior of the house. It’s breaking the law, and private property should be sacrosanct in that respect.

What law are they breaking, Casdon?

If it's the law of trespass then it is a civil matter, not criminal, and in a civil matter, if I recall correctly from my long ago lectures, there has to be some sort of 'injury' done which can be 'righted' by monetary compensation.

There are exceptions to this, where trespass is a criminal offence as set out in a 1994 Act. The CPS sentencing guidelines don't seem to cover climbing on a roof and draping a property with black netting, though.

So, unless the Greenpeace protestors actually caused physical damage (in which case they could be charged with criminal damage) it looks, to my layman's eye, as though there's not a great deal that can be done.

Unless, of course, there's a Climbing and Draping offence specified in the recent Police and Criminal evidence Act

I can't say I'd be overbothered if someone climbed on my roof and draped my house with black netting, unless they were aggressive and did some damage. I'd just think it a weird thing to do...

Did it occur in this case?

No one was physically harmed , what of physiological harm ?
that’s justified?

I am in no way as Sunak supporter. I feel strongly about this whoever private property belongs to. I can’t help thinking politics is overcoming rationality for some people.

Wyllow3

They also did no damage and did not enter the property.

Sometimes breaking the law is justified morally as long as no one is harmed. (Quaker values)

I don’t agree. The property includes the grounds and the exterior of the house. It’s breaking the law, and private property should be sacrosanct in that respect.

They also did no damage and did not enter the property.

Sometimes breaking the law is justified morally as long as no one is harmed. (Quaker values)