Greenpeace stop a coal train with a polar bear in the Retford area

[Reorte]

Which I didn't.

 

I think you're a little too sensitive.

Apolgies for misinterpreting your post.

[Gary H]

Rugd1022, on 25 Sept 2014 - 12:07, said:

I'll just give a simple, plain answer to your reply - they were trespassing so were putting their lives and those of others in danger, it really is as simple as that. Whether the train was moving or staionary it makes no difference - they should not have been there, period.

 

I shan't say anymore in this thread or I'll end up being barred from the forum.

Aye, spot on Nidge.

Trespass on the railway is an absolute offence!!! Plain and simple. Your either trespassing or you are not.

 You cant be trespassing ""just a little bit"".  

The fact that its a slow speed freight only line and the train was stopped at the time or a 4 track 125MPH west coast mainline makes absolutely no bleddy difference what so ever where railway By-laws are concerned.

It is black and white!

[beast66606]

The more informed and determined will not need any "How to do it" video. These days a whole raft of railway operating information is in the public domain: the rule book, sectional appendices, working timetables and so on, all of which I like to have a rummage through every now and then. What really surprised me was the very publication of these documents which were always headed "Private and not for publication", most certainly for sound reasons at the time, but in the name of transparency lately.

 

I believe - from a friend of mine who used to work in the libraries - that "Private and not for publication" actually avoided a copy having to be sent to the central library in London and didn't mean the document was actually "Private" or "Not for publication"

 

If you think they are bad, you're not going to like the realtime views I've got of a lot of signal box panels

[Gary H]

Ozexpatriate, on 25 Sept 2014 - 15:30, said:

 

I would suggest that with the safety culture in the UK this activity was less risky than a similar stunt in, say, North America.

 

There a plans to increase trains of Powder River coal here (including street running) to an LPG terminal that is yet to be built.

Having a little understanding on how American Railroad police deal with trespass matters in the U.S, they would have probably been cuffed at gunpoint and thrown straight into the nearest cells pronto!

[Revolution Mike]

Trespass on the railway is an absolute offence!!! Plain and simple. Your either trespassing or you are not.

 You cant be trespassing ""just a little bit"".  

The fact that its a slow speed freight only line and the train was stopped at the time or a 4 track 125MPH west coast mainline makes absolutely no bleddy difference what so ever where railway By-laws are concerned.

It is black and white!

 

No one is disputing that there was an offence, but the point is that doesn't make the overall aim of the protest black and white.

 

I should imagine the protestors feel that the risks from failure to act on climate change outweigh the risks of the trespass.  At the end of the day they were after publicity and they have achieved that aim...

[Dave Scott]

Pesonal view. There is absolutelyno place for direct action in a parlimentary democracy.

 

There is no excuse for trespass on private property

That does not say there are not legitimate reasons to enter private property without the owners prior permission. for example to repair a gas leak under emergency circumstances under powers granted by parliament.

 

Solve this dichotomy. There is a right of peaceful protest. A peaceful protest may block a road. Any citizen has the right of pasage and re passage on the queens highway. A protest may therefore deprive another citizen of their rights

 

Re safety - if you follow procedures you are more likelly to go home in one piece. If you add in vigilance and common sence to following procedures you reduce the risk even furthur

 

I did disagree Reorte's posts for the above reasons

[PaulRhB]

And now they get to pay the fine to cover the clean up cost and delay that NR has to pay, (DBS), as it was on their infrastructure.

[Reorte]

Aye, spot on Nidge.

Trespass on the railway is an absolute offence!!! Plain and simple. Your either trespassing or you are not.

 You cant be trespassing ""just a little bit"".  

The fact that its a slow speed freight only line and the train was stopped at the time or a 4 track 125MPH west coast mainline makes absolutely no bleddy difference what so ever where railway By-laws are concerned.

It is black and white!

Whether someone is trespassing or not is indeed black and white. No-one has said otherwise. What's being argued about is whether all trespass is the same. All I'm arguing is that some trespassing deserves harsher penalties than others, in the same way that some speeding is (points on the licence for a little over, ban and possibly more for a lot over). I genuinely cannot fathom why some people have an issue with that.

 

No one is disputing that there was an offence, but the point is that doesn't make the overall aim of the protest black and white.

 

I should imagine the protestors feel that the risks from failure to act on climate change outweigh the risks of the trespass.  At the end of the day they were after publicity and they have achieved that aim...

And I hope that we all disagree with them. Indeed with the country being what it is I hope that none of us can think of any situations at all where a similar stunt would be justified.

[Reorte]

Pesonal view. There is absolutelyno place for direct action in a parlimentary democracy.

 

There is no excuse for trespass on private property

That does not say there are not legitimate reasons to enter private property without the owners prior permission. for example to repair a gas leak under emergency circumstances under powers granted by parliament.

 

Solve this dichotomy. There is a right of peaceful protest. A peaceful protest may block a road. Any citizen has the right of pasage and re passage on the queens highway. A protest may therefore deprive another citizen of their rights

 

Re safety - if you follow procedures you are more likelly to go home in one piece. If you add in vigilance and common sence to following procedures you reduce the risk even furthur

 

I did disagree Reorte's posts for the above reasons

Under all those circumstances I completely agree with you. The nature of rule in our country means that I cannot imagine circumstances where I would think such action is justified. Indeed I believe that I said as much. That's different from "never justified under any circumstances" though - it was that dogmatic view I was trying to challenge.

 

I'd say representative parliamentary democracy though, there have been ones that haven't been representative.

[Gary H]

red death, on 25 Sept 2014 - 17:01, said:

No one is disputing that there was an offence, but the point is that doesn't make the overall aim of the protest black and white.

 

I should imagine the protestors feel that the risks from failure to act on climate change outweigh the risks of the trespass.  At the end of the day they were after publicity and they have achieved that aim...

I agree with you on that score!!

My post was aimed at a couple of posts hinting- "that there was no real danger being as the train was stopped" or similar-  "was there any real danger to themselves or railway staff?" etc and others on a similar theme.

[Ozexpatriate]

Having a little understanding on how American Railroad police deal with trespass matters in the U.S, they would have probably been cuffed at gunpoint and thrown straight into the nearest cells pronto!

My intent was to highlight what I see as a higher risk related to interfering with train movements in North America. (Trains left on their own are quite capable of carnage. Lac Megatic for example. An unsecured coal train in a street running environment seems like a nasty situation to me.)

 

The law enforcement response is quite unpredictable. It could vary between  a couple of local sheriff's deputies looking at their shoes trying to figure out what to do and (depending on what military surplus equipment has been provided to the local police*) something akin to the invasion of Iraq. I wonder if coal dust would react to hot, almost incendiary, devices like tear gas cartridges.

 

* facetiously MRAPs for schools

[Ozexpatriate]

What's being argued about is whether all trespass is the same. ... I genuinely cannot fathom why some people have an issue with that.

It is the precedent. If you make allowances that safety rules are merely guidelines that can be ignored under the banner of civil disobedience, tragedy will follow, eventually.

 

I understand the point you want to make and said myself earlier that this exercise was conducted with less stupidly than it might have been.

 

What will your position be the next time an activist violates safety precautions by interfering with railway movements (and with the success of this effort are more than likely to) and someone, perhaps a bystander or railway employee, is hurt?

[Reorte]

I agree with you on that score!!

My post was aimed at a couple of posts hinting- "that there was no real danger being as the train was stopped" or similar-  "was there any real danger to themselves or railway staff?" etc and others on a similar theme.

The question "was there any real danger?" is a valid one - after all won't it affect sentencing?

 

It is the precedent. If you make allowances that safety rules are merely guidelines that can be ignored under the banner of civil disobedience, tragedy will follow, eventually.

 

I understand the point you want to make and said myself earlier that this exercise was conducted less stupidly than it might have been.

 

What will your position be the next time an activist violates safety precautions by interfering with railway movements (and with the success of this effort are more than likely to) and someone, perhaps a bystander or railway employee, is hurt?

The same can be said for taking that point of view too, that injustices will persist if you stick with that reasoning. What I am most definitely not saying is that any disobedience is OK for that reason. Indeed I hope that I live in a country where no such behaviour can ever make a case for itself.

 

If someone gets hurt the next time someone tries something then the people who carried out that particular action are entirely responsible for it. Since I'm not in any way condoning this particular action I don't think that it's really all that relevant to ask me about the next time. Hopefully the result of this won't be inspiration but more sensible people thinking "What a bunch of lunatics, now sitting in prison, I don't want anything to do with them any more."

 

History has plenty of examples of people breaking rules to draw attention to injustices and issues, and for that reason if we're to remain a civilised nation we always need to ask ourselves "Was that justified?" whenever there is any action. Hopefully the answer will always be "No, bang them up."

[Astockfan101]

When I read this I thought that that it was about Polar Bear from the Isle of Man and they had put it on the line.

[Ozexpatriate]

When I read this I thought that that it was about Polar Bear from the Isle of Man and they had put it on the line.

I thought the Bundy Bear was offering the driver a rum and coke.

[wombatofludham]

I'm sorry people, but when it comes to railway operations things are black and white.  There's a rule book, everybody has to abide by it or else safety suffers (at least that was what I was told when I had to access the railway as part of a previous job).  That's why I would never make a good signalman, I hate following rules and regulations and am a bit bolshy, not good characteristics for safety critical railway operations work.

 

I can only think of one occasion when trespass on a railway might be justified, if you know a train is approaching a hazard and needs to be stopped - in which case you might be justified to stand next to the track waving a red light or flag or cloth, but such instances are extremely rare.  Stopping a train to make a political point is not justified.

 

[Reorte]

I can only think of one occasion when trespass on a railway might be justified, if you know a train is approaching a hazard and needs to be stopped - in which case you might be justified to stand next to the track waving a red light or flag or cloth, but such instances are extremely rare.  Stopping a train to make a political point is not justified.

Never, under no circumstances that you could possibly imagine, no matter what it's carrying for whatever purpose?

 

I'm happy to agree with you in the case of the UK, today. As a 100% absolute general principle, no. To say otherwise is to have absolute certainty that something is always right or wrong and there is nothing that I'm prepared to do that for.

 

I can't help feeling that some of the same arguments might well have been used against Emily Davison.

[Dave Scott]

Never, under no circumstances that you could possibly imagine, no matter what it's carrying for whatever purpose?

 

I'm happy to agree with you in the case of the UK, today. As a 100% absolute general principle, no. To say otherwise is to have absolute certainty that something is always right or wrong and there is nothing that I'm prepared to do that for.

 

I can't help feeling that some of the same arguments might well have been used against Emily Davison.

For those who may not follow the history of protest Emily placed herself in front of the kings horse at the 1913 Derby. She died of her injuries

 

By refering to Emily you have inadvertantly nailed your true colours to the mast. In my view the sufraget movements direct action probab harmed womens sufferage rather than advanced it. All it did was to harden the resolve of the establishment to maintain the status quoe. Remember the wind and sun. The wind blew and tried to remove the walkers overcoat but the walker wraped it tighter. Then the sun tried with gentle warmth and the coat was removed

[Boco_D1]

Having just seen this article and reading some of the posts I am shocked by those who seem to think it's okay to trespass on the railway, I am rule book trained, I have the correct PPE, I know my line very well but I am not PTS (personal track safety) trained and I would never dream of venturing out onto the line without someone who is. The railway has a rulebook for a reason, as I was told at signalling school ‘it's a record of every incident and death on the railway’, these rules included one for trespassers, which states that if the signalman believes that those on the line are in danger of or will endanger passing trains then they should caution until the trespasser has been removed from the railway.

 

 

I would not hesitate for a second to stop and caution any other train if I received a report of trespassers running around on the line and climbing wagons, regardless of speed of that line or how "safely" they stopped the train. All it takes is one person slip onto the track and be hit by a passing train, they could fall from the wagon or trip on a sleeper. For those who say that’s a might have been and it didn't happen so what does it matter, that’s not the point, the point is it could happen and it has happened before and that’s why the railway has a rule for it.

 

 

As for the quote of no passenger trains where delayed because the train was in the sidings; really? Can you guarantee? I’m pretty certain that train would have missed its return path and therefore would have a knock on effect for other services.

 

 

And as for greenpeace, I have no time for this organisation whose members think they have the right to break the law to meet their own needs. As pointed out they have done this stunt before, which ironically/moronically resulted in them polluting a river. When I was researching nuclear flask trains I came across a greenpeace site protesting against these trains, claiming that passengers were in danger of the radiation when they passed through stations and even how terrorists could blow them up in stations as dirty bombs, the writer clearly wasn’t that worried about the terrorist threat though because they published the (very private and confidential) timetable for these trains on the bottom of the page, genius.

[Reorte]

Yes, the debate about her still goes on. It's certainly not black and white.

 

I don't know why you say I've nailed my colours to the mast. My position has always been that there are conceivably situations where such action is justified, although these days I can't think of any where it would be.

[wombatofludham]

Two other points of law which might be of interest.  Trespass on the railway is the only form of trespass other than trespass on restricted military/government sites which is a criminal offence with a maximum fine of £1000 and of course a criminal record with all the consequences that can have on future employment or other activities.  Also there is the crime of "endangering safety on the railway", which means an act or omission which endangers the safety of people using the railway or working on the railway, and can result in, if committed by an act of neglect, up to two years imprisonment, or if committed with intent, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

 

It would be interesting to see if there are grounds for the endangerment charge in this case.  They placed an obstruction in front of the (albeit stationary) train which would in other circumstances be seen as endangerment.

[AngryMeerkat]

I've followed this on Facebook, and the Greenpeace reaction, and all I can say is why are they not all in prison on terrorism charges?

 

Forcing your ideals or way of life on a population and government that don't want your ideals, taking direct action against parts of a countries infrastructure, basing your ideals on unproven theories and propaganda, sounds a lot like Al Queda or ISIS to me.

 

As for the larger ambitions of Greenpeace, never have I seen or read such rubbish in all my life! There is no concrete proof or evidence to suggest the climate is changing due to man and not just going through its natural variations. But I guess, like religion, people will believe what suits them and bend the facts to fit. I don't mind this one bit, everyone needs a reason or a focus and if religion or Greenpeace are yours then I hope either help you get through life happy. JUST DONT FORCE YOUR OPINIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE!

 

But more than anything it's the actions of Greenpeace that really REALLY peev me off. They've used their boat to purposely ram other vessels in open water, as a mariner I find this beyond comprehension. They've boarded and scaled a drilling platform off the coast of Russia, again an act beyond the realms of dangerous and something they should've been charged for in Russia. Their direct action affects thousands of normal people, but they don't care. They are so focussed on their own ideals they can't seem to focus on the real world. Most of these activists drive cars, they all use mobile fones and the rare minerals they contain, they all use the Internet and the infrastructure which installs and provides the service (including the coal power stations which provide the electricity to power the Internet), but I guess they can ignore the REAL inconvenient truth as it doesn't fit their ideals.

 

Me? I'm happy to recycle as much as I can both in work and at home. In exchange I don't feel at all guilty about using the loud pedal in the Alfa or spending the weekend dancing the throttle on the big V6 in my boat. If anyone has a problem with that, please go and find somebody who actually cares and leave us normal people alone. You may want to live in the dark ages, I prefer to enjoy the fruits of mans invention.

 

Mark

[Reorte]

Careful, or else Greenpeace might organise a mass trespass to highlight increasing levels of internet forum toxicity too!

Well said. I think we all share the same opinion on Greenpeace in this case and I'm only really arguing from the point of view of totally unrealistic examples, so I'm going to do my best to stop that and do some modelling instead.

[Bernard Lamb]

I find it very interesting how this thread has developed.

There is an almost universal condemnation of the action of Greenpeace.

I mentioned early in the thread that I counter Greenpeace chuggers by saying I support Sea Shepherd.

Paul Watson the founder and boss of Sea Shepherd was a founder member of Greenpeace but broke away as he found their methods too tame.

Mention has been made of the secrecy behind the funding of Greenpeace. The funding behind Sea Shepherd is even more convoluted.

I did meet him once in the Galapagos and was "educated" as to various aspects of their activities. I did actually experience one "incident" at first hand. 

They are way more extreme than Greenpeace.

However they have the backing of some very high level people in both business and politics.

So, although you are all against such actions, many very well known people do support such goings on, even if only in private.

By high level I do mean high level.

They would not have been able to act as they have done without this backing.

Bernard

[Horsetan]

..... In exchange I don't feel at all guilty about using the loud pedal in the Alfa or spending the weekend dancing the throttle on the big V6 in my boat. If anyone has a problem with that, please go and find somebody who actually cares and leave us normal people alone. You may want to live in the dark ages, I prefer to enjoy the fruits of mans invention.

I'm glad to discover that the Citroën CX can run on leaded petrol, so I can see myself adding lots of tetra ethyl lead to every tankful....