Tina Rothery with supporters at a previous court appearance in Blackpool
The shale gas company, Cuadrilla, has been accused of an “aggressive and sustained” pursuit of court costs of more than £55,000 against the leading anti-fracking campaigner, Tina Rothery.
Lawyers for Cuadrilla have accused Ms Rothery of “persisting in inaccurately portraying” the legal process.
A vocal opponent of Cuadrilla’s activities in Lancashire, Ms Rothery faces going to prison this week for contempt of court following a long-running and complicated legal dispute with the company.
Her solicitor, Paul Ridge, of Bindmans, said:
“I have never seen a company behave as aggressively and for such a sustained period towards a single protestor on the matter of costs as in this case by Cuadrilla.”
In correspondence to Cuadrilla’s lawyers, Eversheds, he said:
“The steps now being taken to seek payment have been started by your client and it would be possible for them to stop the action by confirming that they no longer seek costs from Ms Rothery and regard this matter as at an end.
“It is hard to see why this enforcement action was started by Cuadrilla (at some expense) and is continuing. In my experience this is out of line with other companies that seek injunctions against protestors.”
Mr Ridge said Cuadrilla knew that Ms Rothery could not pay the costs, adding:
“It is made all the more oppressive when they know that there is nothing to be gained.”
Cuadrilla’s response
Cuadrilla has argued that the outcome now rested with the courts because Ms Rothery had refused to provide details of her finances. But Mr Ridge that if Cuadrilla dropped the case then the court would no longer seek the information.
In a reply to Mr Ridge, Julie Dilcock, of Eversheds, said:
“Your email below does not accurately portray the process in which Ms Rothery is currently involved and Ms Rothery has herself persisted in inaccurately portraying the process.
Ms Dilcock said:
“At no point has the Court ordered her to confirm that she will or will not in fact pay the costs she was ordered to pay in 2014. To comply with the Court’s order and purge her contempt, all she is required to do is answer the questionnaire.
“If Ms Rothery wishes to continue to disobey the Order of the Court and refuse to answer the questions that the Court has ordered her to answer (and which it appears from your correspondence that she has no objection to answering), that is a matter for her and no doubt the Court will deal with her continued contempt in accordance with CPR 71 [regulations]
“The Court has warned Ms Rothery of the consequences of her refusal to answer the Court’s questions and I have no doubt that the District Judge will again issue that warning to her on Friday.”
Full copies of correspondence from Paul Ridge and Julie Dilcock
Open letter to Francis Egan
The call for Cuadrilla to drop the case has been repeated in an open letter to the company’s chief executive, Francis Egan, by Ms Rothery’s supporters. The signatories included the actor Emma Thompson, designer Vivienne Westwood, filmmaker Josh Fox, senior Green Party politicians, union leaders and campaigners from environmental groups. (See the end of this post for the full list).
Supporter Emma Thompson at an anti-fracking “Bake-off” Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site
They told Mr Egan the decision to pursue Ms Rothery “looks like a deliberate strategy to deter other protesters”.
They wrote:
“Tina is an ordinary citizen seeking to exercise her right of protest against an industry which, according to Government opinion polls, is more unpopular than ever because of the risks it poses to our health, to our local and global environment and to our communities.
“We urge you to drop Tina’s case, allow peaceful protest and halt the drilling – for all our futures.”
Friday court hearing
Ms Rothery has been ordered to appear in court in Preston on Friday lunchtime. If, as expected, she again refuses to give the court financial information, she could be sent to Styall Prison in Cheshire for two weeks.
The case dates back to August 2014 when anti-fracking campaigners, including a group called the Lancashire Nanas, occupied a field off Preston New Road at Little Plumpton near Blackpool.
The field was near where Cuadrilla had applied for planning permission a few months earlier to drill, frack and test for shale gas.
Following the occupation, two Cuadrilla companies and a group of landowners asked the High Court for a possession order that would allow them to evict the campaigners. They also sought an injunction to prevent access by members of 17 national and local anti-fracking groups to several other sites in the area.
The campaigners left the field before the eviction date. But at a High Court hearing in Manchester, Ms Rothery asked for an adjournment to allow time to consider the case for the injunction. She was the only named defendant.
When the case returned to court in October 2014, Ms Rothery offered no evidence. The judge ordered her to pay part of Cuadrilla’s costs for the extra court time.
The costs were set at £51,594.53. In January 2015, Ms Rothery offered £500, which Cuadrilla’s lawyers, Eversheds, rejected.
Ms Rothery continued to refuse to pay and in June 2016 the total had risen, with interest at 8%, to £55,342.37.
Case “has nothing to do with justice”
At a hearing at Blackpool Law Courts, she refused to give information under oath about her finances. She told a court official:
“I have huge admiration for a system of justice that is fair but I feel in this case that our law courts are not being used to seek justice but instead being applied like a weapon and a threat against peaceful protest.
“The fact that Cuadrilla has the finances, power and vindictiveness to pursue this through our courts is an abuse of one of the most valued aspects of our democracy.
“So please accept my apologies if this seems rude but as this case has nothing to do whatsoever with justice, I will not be complying with any requests for information or payment.”
She was judged to be in contempt of court and now has one more opportunity to give the court the information it asked for.
Supporters are expected to gather outside the court in Preston on Friday when the case is heard.
Full list of signatories to the open letter
Emma Thompson
Vivienne Westwood
Josh Fox, Filmmaker
Raoul Martinez, Artist, writer, filmmaker
Francesca Martinez, Comedian
Anthony Tombling, Filmmaker
Suzanne Jeffery, Campaign against Climate Change
Donna Hume, Friends of the Earth
John Sauven, Greenpeace
Ellie Groves, Reclaim the Power
Danielle Paffard, 350.org
Nick Dearden, Global Justice Now
Caroline Lucas, Green Party
Jonathan Bartley, Green Party
Natalie Bennett, Green Party
Manuel Cortes, TSSA union
Chris Baugh, PCS union
Matt Wrack, FBU union
Tony Kearns, Communication Workers Union
Ian Hodson, Bakers, Food & Allied Workers union
Graham Petersen, Greener Jobs Alliance
Updated at 10.31 on 8/12/2016 to include response from Cuadrilla provided this morning
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
You can add my ‘supreme leadership’ of myself my dog and two cats to that list Paul.
Do you support this irrational and time wasting pursuit of Ms Tina Rothery or do you think as I do that it is blatant victimisation and intimidation by Cuadrilla?
The list is irrelevant, the Courts will decide based on the Law. End of story. It would appear that there has been ample opportunity to bring this to an early end. For are start “the list” could all have chipped in. Small change to ET or VW at top of the list. But the opportunity was not taken because rightly or wrongly a decision has been taken to let this run until the bitter end to try and undermine Cuadrilla and the Courts – and no doubt to gain press coverage.
That said, I have no love of Eversheds – I have fought them twice at Appeals – and we won both times. They used to act for onshore wind farms at PIs – now it seems they have moved on to O & G. A bit like Ken Cronin of UKOOG who I understand used to work for the renewables industry before moving to UKOOG?
Interesting articles about VW regularly in Private Eye (offshore for tax, unpaid interns……).
Admirable inversion Paul, well played! The real question here i think is why Cuadrilla singled out one elderly person to concentrate their fire on? it was not the courts that pursued this, as some of these other posts claim, but a direct and deliberate action by Cuadrilla. If you look closely at how these things have been played out elsewhere, it becomes evident that the strategy of singling out one person is seen to have a number of useful effects on protectors.
1. It discourages others to protest themselves, for fear of direct victimization by Cuadrilla.
2. It becomes easier for one person to be isolated out of a group because prosecuting multiple people gets messy and could lead to unforeseen complications.
3. It sets up Cuadrilla as the illusion of a big bad wolf identity archetype which is a psychological strategy since we are essentially pack animals and the pack members usually submit to a pack leader, real or imagined. for this reason we mistakenly employ politicians to do our dirty work, they push the pack leader instinct button in us. The truth of course is that when all the pack leaders congregate, why they are elected and who they represent gets…..how should i put it……secondary treatment?
4. Since the undemocratic demise of legal aid in this country, a deliberate theft of human rights in the UK, it is easier for big corporations to victimise individuals one at a time, a simple divide and conquer strategy.
5. Corporations can hide behind the law and act all hurt at any suggestion that they are doing this deliberately on their own behalf.
6. Fracking is supported by central and local government and judgement will almost certainly favour the accuser, unless by some happy bureaucratic accident a strong independent judge is appointed.
There are of course downsides to that strategy
1. If enough people see through the disguise, then the exercise becomes less effective and even backfire on the accusers, this is what is happening to Cuadrilla.
2. The strategy if used too often or too blatantly becomes ineffective due to the adverse publicity it attains.
3. With a population specifically excluded from the democratic process and denied human rights and representation, denied rights to legal representation without massive costs only the perpetrators can afford, the growing realisation of of the inneffectuality of the democratic process when applied to the every day person creates a back lash which condemns any action or move by the perpetrator in every aspect of its behaviour, and is therefore counter productive.
So you can see that Cuadrilla have actually damaged themselves quite considerably by this action, something that better informed advisers should have made them aware of.
Actually Cuadrilla’s position won’t have changed. Most of the people on this BB and on the “list” above were already anti Cuadrilla – either because they live near a potential well site (understandable), they are eco zealots with an anti-industry agenda, they are individuals who rightly or wrongly are against shale in principal, or they are hypocrites.
99.9% of the country won’t notice if she goes to prison or not, and won’t care even if they do notice.
Ask the Green Party their opinion of VW….
Is this a ‘ Supreme Leaders’ 99-9% assessment of the figures Paul or are you exaggerating somewhat? I suspect you would be surprised at how many object to Tinas treatment by Cuadrilla, shades of Hillary Clinton spring to mind. I think people care more than you think, its only the owned media that have minimised the issue.
Hey! you’ve left me out Paul. I don’t fit any of those stereotypes. But I guess it saves wear and tear on the brain cells to reduce every explanation (of opposition) to a simplistic blame game.
An Open Letter to Francis Egan,
Mr. Egan,
On behalf of law-abiding citizens everywhere, we beseech you to continue in your pursuit of justice against Tina Rothery. We want an example to be made of this woman, and those who support her, because this group of zealots seems to think that the law does not apply to them when they are acting to support their cause. When this group comes into conflict with the system, they shriek that the system is rigged, and they then violate the system in the belief that their ends justify their means. When national interests trump local interests, they claim that democracy has somehow been trampled upon, even though this is the essence of a democratic system. They need to be made to understand that the rest of the country will not sit idly by while this group of zealots abuse the system.
All the Best, hballpeeny
… translation: ‘On behalf of hballpeeny’s investment portfolio, which is now turning pear shaped, we beseech you … etc
for you, Phil. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/309194-the-epa-will-likely-conclude-fracking-doesnt-affect#.WEmSVmg7K-k.facebook
Thank you.. and for you (the reality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XgoekcrBw
Interesting that if Tina had been supported financially, Cuadrilla would have further pursued and victimised her for costs. This would not, or has been before an action by the courts however, but victimisation by Cuadrilla. In this way Cuadrilla get nothing, but if she had been supported financially they would have had grounds for claiming costs. So the whole argument of supporters providing financial support would have just lead to further victimisation? Strange how things worked out isn’t it?
The title of this article suggests that Cuadrilla is somehow breaking the law in pursuing its case against Rothery. This is simply journalistic connivance. Cuadrilla is well within its legal rights, and should absolutely pursue this case to its logical end, not doing so would be a breach of its duty to many of its stakeholders. I love it how the Greenies assume that their perspective is the one that matters. Then they turn around and tell everyone to remain open-minded. What a bunch of bollocks!
A reminder of how much Cuadrilla care for local communities.
Still on their website. Their latest update on Becconsall.
In accordance with the planning consent well plugging and site restoration work will be carried out after the wintering bird’s season, ending 31st March 2016 and before the deadline set by Lancashire County Council of 31st October 2016. Cuadrilla will inform local residents in advance of exactly when the work will begin next year.
No work started, never mind finished.
A blatant disregard of local people with genuine concerns
Illegal. No.
Unprincipled. Yes
They are their own worst enemy
Greed and bullying will be their demise.
Agreed John, we cant expect anything different from this industry, but exposing it will, i hope, make people think twice before letting it into their quiet roads and fields.
Sorry but on the flip side. She should be made an example, people also lose everything who invest in companies because of protestors ignorance. She shouldn’t have fought against them without a strong case. She should do something about the out of work protestors, who could also get jobs and provide essential elements to our economy. Sorry no sympathy.
Interesting Mrs M … “people also lose everything who invest in companies because of protestors ignorance.” Gosh! Do people actually invest everything in a gas prospecting company? And can you cite one example of ignorance displayed by Ms Rothery?
Would the example of Ms Rothrey, and others, trespassing satisfy your request Philip P? She along with numerous others were in a place where they had no right to be, simple explanation and example really.
Perhaps if those who were happy to share in limelight at the time, albeit illegal limelight, were to come forward and help Ms Rothrey financially, she wouldn’t be in the LEGAL trouble she is currently facing.
And I can’t see where Mrs M made reference to investing everything in a gas prospecting company, my reading of her contribution was of a general investment nature. You’re not trying to misinterpret her contribution are you?
tina volunteered to be the named person in the action and has said many times that she does not want anybody to help her pay the costs
Philip P my reading of Mrs M’s contribution reveals she didn’t specifically mention investing and losing everything in a gas exploration company, she made a more general statement. You’re not trying to be mischievous are you?
As for your post requesting an example of Ms. Rothrey, and many others ignorance being displayed, how does the example of illegally being in a place where she, and many others, shouldn’t have been.
It’s commonly referred to as breaking the law, that sounds like a fair enough example to me. You don’t think her and others actions in knowingly breaking the law was ignorant?
I responded to her exact words as quoted – how is that mischievous?
From my own research I understand that Ms Rothery has done her homework (based and what she is saying and what she stands for) and can see what is coming down the line. Regarding ‘breaking the law’, does it not matter to you that local democracy has been over-ridden. Cameron and Osborne went on record saying that (when announcing the government’s intentions on fracking) ‘we are not a dictatorship and local people and planners will be able to decide what happens in their area’. In other words the law has been set up – prejudiced (or pre judged). Tina is highlighting this fact with her stand… takes some courage don’t you think?
The O&G companies have a notorious track record in the States of dividing communities and, once they get their way – after the sweeteners (bribes basically) are in place for the local officials, press and schools then the locals from that point on are often treated with contempt, especially if they get in the way. The divide and rule strategies they are adopting here are looking almost identical.
With regards to local jobs it would be wise to understand what this means for the young people in the area and look at how it works in practice (the well clustering techniques they use there will be replicated here as it’s the only way of making shale well development work economically). Have a look at what the process meant for this Wyoming farmer then consider the impact it would have on areas of much higher populations – he addresses points for all kinds of places btw (towns/cities/farms) – the reference to local jobs is at 24 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1wj08fgFjo
It is also worth noting how contamination issues and complaints get buried and liabilities avoided by the companies involved. Maybe that’s another story.
No, Phillip, it doesn’t. Because breaking the law is breaking the law. A system was set up to override local democracy in cases where national interests became more important.
Then let the country debate what is in the national interest. Moratoriums are being raised in the States on the issue of preservation of groundwater being of greater national interest than oil or gas. Then there’s surface contamination, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. These things are real and a real concern and people here should know the truth before the juggernauts start turning up.
Yes what interests must we ‘afford’ to protect. Natural water? Lets keep it. I guess the central government are prepared to risk it, or believe toxins wouldn’t get revealed, or they could bring in the bottled Nestle water in the event of disaster….Oh but that’s plastics. And would take a lot of shipping on that scale! Not like our precious clean water filtered through all that lovely shale rock in the beautiful hills and valleys. Hmm. And oil so cheap in the world. Makes you wonder why they would want the frack firms here… ? Are they worried the u.k. are losing a grip on the world in another way? Or are there just friends on the board? What is going on? Are they just stubborn because a few meetings have already happened?What is the impetus behind this odd proposal? Also we don’t want nuclear do we. Was that an alternative? I hope we find a good way forward. For all people into the future and across the world. It really is a question that blasts current materialistic propulsion out of the water, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Mrs E – Here’s a couple of references on water and fracking : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas …and… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XgoekcrBw … in the second item Wes Wilson makes several refs to water issues – there’s a good section at around 18 mins.
The amount of water used is not having any great impact on us here in the states, even in arid climates. GHG emissions are down, surface spills are rare. Obviously the US has more experience than any country in the world with the technology and practice and we believe that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
The US is importing millions of barrels of oil daily.
https://www.eia.gov/peTroleum/imporTs/companylevel/
With so many of their drilling rigs idle, why would they not drill more and import less?
Maybe something to do with this
http://www.credoeconomics.com/shale-euphoria-the-boom-and-bust-of-sub-prime-oil-and-natural-gas/
So many investors have lost so much money.
John, I am afraid that you are a victim of the shameless propaganda machine from the anti-frack world.
First, note that for the first time, the US has become a net exporter of natural gas thanks to fracking. http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-milestone-the-u-s-is-now-a-net-exporter-of-natural-gas-1480258801
Quite an impressive feat given the fact that we were a massive importer not long ago!
As for wealth, as you can imagine, gobs of it have been created. I don’t think you have much appreciation for the scale of it, but an industry doesn’t come from nowhere to supply 70% of our economy’s natural gas without creating almost unimaginable wealth. That wealth is reflected in the market capitalization of various shale gas and oil companies, and is also found in the market capitalization of large integrated o&g companies.
The scare story from Credo is like so many other that have been written. It is a short-seller, talking his book, nothing more. He has been proven wrong over, and over, and over, and over. This is because costs have come down much faster than most people anticipated and efficiency gains have been astounding. Every commodity goes through cycles, and gas is no different. When it falls, companies have difficulties, but they adjust and continue. The weaker ones are culled from the herd. We’ve been through a couple cycles during the fracking revolution, yet we still have yet to see the collapsing house of cards that your doomsayers have predicted for years!
Best of luck!
Whilst i dont think any one of the pro lifers wants to break any laws, Cuadrilla et al have hardly kept within the required legal constraints themselves such as they are by their actions. You only have to examine some of the archaic and frankly irrational laws still in operation to see that potentially just walking down the street breaks enough laws to put you in jail. This is why the law is re examined and revised at regular intervals. Many laws are not meant to interpreted the way a modern court of law would use them, and are only used to circumvent the process hence the defendant from receiving justice.
“The person who commences civil action is usually called “plaintiff”. The party that is sued is called “defendant”. Occasionally, litigants may start an action by way of “application” asking courts to determine disagreement between the parties, such as interpretation of a contract or question on the ownership of property or land. In this case, the parties are called “applicant” and “respondent”. In case, the parties are appealing court or administrative board judgment to higher court, the litigants are called “appellant” and “respondent”.
In order to challenge a court judgement it is possible to appeal, but in the absence of legal aid the process is so exorbitantly expensive, essentially any legal review is denied to almost anyone not able to call on thousands of pounds to fight it.
So the law and justice no longer is available to the little person….you and me, and we are back in the dark age of serfdom and slavery.
So then we ask ourselves, what is left to do? Submit? Lie down? Roll over and play dead? What?
Do you think it is O.K. to obey the law whatever the law is? Is there anything you would not obey if it were to be made law? Do you think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or that apartheid is right?
To be honest if the out of work protestors as you call them, got ordinary jobs, mac donalds? petrol stations? who then would seek to protect our moors, greenbelt land and water table from drills and radioactive waste? Look at the Great Barrier reef, the rain forest destruction etc. Do you really think that environmental protectors would be better off cogs in a corporate machine Mrs M? Do you ever enjoy the country side?
She’ll look good in the current prison attire, but watch out for those nasty prison types Ms Rothery
If you not only break the law, but flagrantly disobey a COURT, not CUADRILLA order, then you should rightly suffer the consequences.
Maybe you sorry lot who left her holding the can will put your actions where your mouths are and help her pay her fine.
What? A fifty grand fine to a foreign corporation for trying to protect our environment? By the court that is supposed to represent our people? I think you people are commenting off a weird agenda….(edited by moderator)
Agree. She acted and continues to act with intent in contempt of a COURT Order not Caudrilla or amyone. And just imagine if everyone use the excuse of stand up for ‘my principles’ to act in contempt of the court then we might as well as dissolve western civilization. For example if Brexit use the same excuse as the anti fracker and say to hell with the high court order for the hearing on Brexit we are just gonna ahead because we won democracy by the referendum vote.
There are alot of tough and extremists in the prison and many think they are above the civil law. I am sure she will fit right in and maybe even able to recruit some to join her cause.
It is amazing that so many people do not get it! Tina Rothery is a brave and honest woman, who is just fighting for our communities against a company who is about to destroy land and pollute our water and damage the air we breath with Methane and radon gas, which will be released into our atmosphere. This is technology that is so last century and has been overtaken by more environmentally favourable energy from renewable’s. I was a so called’ trespasser’ on the field . along with The Nannas, Tina andf her supporters probably would help to pay the fine, but this would not serve justice at all and would be unreasonable. Ms Rothery in taking the burden of prosecution from many vulnerable protesters and has done a very noble service for her community She deserves recognition for her stance.People in the US who have suffered greatly from the Shale gas debacle know only too well the damage to their health and environment, including earthquakes on a massive scale. Tina is a heroin and the court needs to recognise the injustice she has tolerated from this company and it is Cuadrilla that should be in the dock for their harrasment and vindictiveness against her and our community.
I don’t think your example of Brexit is appropriate. Not only have hate and race crime incidents risen since the referendum but also MPs on the Remain side have received death threats, as have those that brought the legal case against the government. Plus there was the very tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, which was attributed to her pro European belief.
However, I do think the behaviour of those that have behaved in this appalling way does serve as a comparison to show just how trivial the trespass offence was and how disproportionate the fees are.
Maybe. How about if the government under court order for example of release the defra report under request of freedom of information and they refuse the court order.
At the previous court hearing the court did not choose to charge Tina with contempt of court. It was up to Cuadrilla as to wether they chose to pursue this. Obviously then it is not a cut and dried case
Michael – Nobody has left her holding the can. You are not listening to what the lady has been saying. Stick to horse-racing tips my friend, your grasp of this issue is a bit limited.
Well well they are all crawling out of the woodwork today, there are more resurrected zombie alter egos here than you can shake a chainsaw at. They must smell blood?
I think I have just given myself nightmares!
The oil and gas industry being stopped in it’s tracks by grandmas who make yummy cakes.
All that sneaking around, avoiding environmental impact assessments, salami slicing planning applications, sham public consultations and biased planning officers, all brought out into the open using chocolate and lemon drizzle.
There will be some fun history lessons for children in our green environmentally clean future.
Thank you Tina, thank you Nannas
Hear, hear. Perfectly said JP 🙂
This lady shows disrespect to the law and fails to follow it’s orders. If she does not comply with the court’s order tomorrow she should go to prison where she will have time to reflect on the wisdom of her actions.
I cannot believe the comments on here. It never ceases to amaze me what depths some of those that oppose fracking will sink to.
This was a trespass, a civil offence with no damage caused. Yes an offence but a trivial offence, the fees are completely disproportionate.
All of us writing posts here, enjoy rights that others have fought for and broken the law and been imprisoned in doing so. At the time they were vilified and called criminals and extremists. With the world facing catostrophic climate change, air pollution killing people, the global movement to phase out fossil fuels and the need to stop further extraction of new hydrocarbon reserves – I strongly suspect that those that opposed fracking will, in the future, be remembered far more kindly than those that supported it.
I also suspect this will further strengthen opposition to fracking as Cuadrilla is most definitely trying to make an example of this lady.
I would also add, that in the opinion of many, unsubstantiated and nasty comments only reflect negatively on those that make them.
Disproportionate? If there hasn’t been so much uninformed and illegal opposition to Cuadrilla then Cadrilla would have been fracking by now. Making money by now. Contributing a portion to the community by now. Also, don’t forget the workers Cuadrilla had to let go and the continuing court costs that come from the public purse. This person (and people like her), who show no regard for the law, deserve to be locked up.
Apologies – my post should read – support fracking will sink to!
It is not trespassing that got her into trouble. It was her appeal and request for adjournment of the court proceeding that cost the party time and legal fee and the judge and court time in addition to her failure to turn up in court. Get real. If she is allowed to behave this way business will go under because some jokers will drag on the legal proceeding by appeal for adjournment and then do not turn up while the other side have to pay for the legal fee.
Couldn’t agree more TW.
The offence was trivial, with no damage done, but the financial imposition was primarily due to her appeal and request for adjournment, coupled with her failure to abide by a legal requirement and front up at court.
KT it’s not Cuadrilla or any other exploration company who set penalties when offences are committed, it’s the courts, for you to intimate that those who support fracking are the ones responsible is just simply ludicrous, laughable in fact.
KT as for the final sentence of your post were you refer to people who make nasty comments, all I will say is that “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
Still time for you, and the other anti-frackers to make a contribution towards Ms. Rothrey’s dilemma. I bet she now wish’s she had of attended court when summoned to in the first place 🙂
I can only imagine the stress she must be under. But make no mistake I have zero sympathy for her. You reap what you sow.
I suspect the judges gavel will get a hammering when all these issues emerge in court, sparks will fly and strategies revealed, that is somewhere the pro frackers cannot silence the hidden majority.
Well the legal system needs an overhaul if it looks to have become an economically governed system the way you clearly outline above with main regards to ‘bills’ and money. In England the idea is that The judiciary should be impartial and not operate on the grounds of wealth or economic pressure. How that relates to the court process should also be reviewed. Yes – why didn’t she turn up? She could do a Sunday Times spread on it and then maybe people would become more engaged with wondering why certain Ministers and Central government figures want to bring overseas fracking firms into rural England, whilst many local councils are trying to protect communities and land from the potential destructions it would cause to the natural systems that support our lives, wild life, water, and crops. In fact what hangs in the balance between us, our land and resources, and the way we use it is the biggest question of the day. If you hand everything over to profit you really are handing everything to ‘Ceasar’ as the old story goes. Was it not brave of the lady to stand up and raise an objection to whatever process allows the company to come marching in Was she not simply not rendering what does not belong to ‘Ceasar’…In the manner she could? Through a process. you could say it was inappropriate, however what were the laws supposed to be written for in the first place? And why was a parliament installed? Are we corpses serving the systems that are not serving us, or are we active living beings whom wish to serve the world?All questions to ponder.
The reverse question is why she and the other nymbies have the right to decide other people lawful business. If I don’t like corporate or say Macdonal because of my objections to society obesity does it mean I can ban them from doing business the way the Tina did.
fracking is wrong from start to finish, it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere, so nimbyism doesn’t come into it
I don’t think she’s banned them from doing business. She did make a legal challenge to them. I guess people might start challenging Mc Donalds. They probly do in America. I saw in The Times today that they are expanding a ban advertising junk food in kids programs. But there’s junk food all over shops and ads all over the city. There is a lot of diabetes and cancers and obesity and stuff. Like they could put less sugar in food to make it less harmful and addictive. And less agro chemicals. Its all part of the same quest for sales and profit agreed. But I think people got to be free to get the food they want just like u mite be saying. You could also say people should be free to get organic food and have that available. Course it is expensive. Why do the govt subsidize industrial farms with public purse and not organic ones…? Or is that not the case? Poor old government I am giving them a grilling today. Those poor people who work so hard I am sorry but I guess part of democracy was free speech. Then we roll over.
Well said Mrs E.
nymbie? what is that? lets see, Not Your Methane Beasts In England? No Yanks Masquerading Brutal Incendiary E-mails? No? How about No Yahoos Mess Because Insanely Engineered?
Strangely enough law exists because of continuous debate and modification, it is every citizens right and duty to point out the shortfalls of the failure of existing law in order to create a system which is acceptable to every strata of society, not just the rich. What Ms Tina Rothery is actually doing to point out major shortfalls in the present system so that we all can benefit, you too. you should be grateful to Ms Tina Rothery. This process has continued since the Magna Carta. Do you think the law just stands still? No it is being continually modified, what is happening at the moment is that the process is being stifled by those who would keep the law for themselves and exclude everyone else. Civil wars have been fought for precisely that reason and you are a beneficiary of that or you would still be slaves grubbing about in the mud under the hooves of the ruling elite. “Lots of lovely mud here!”
Incidentally MacDonald s are feeling the pressure to change drastically and are beginning to provide better food because the public have become aware that we are what we eat and our children are suffering obesity because of the predominance and availability of cheap processed foods that contain too much saturated fat, sugar preservatives, pesticides hormones and fillers. Again business does not stand still without pressure to change drastically, the fracking industry will also suffer if they don’t change and quickly too. You could refer to the fracking industry as a dark ages engineering MacDonalds, still producing engineering obesity in fast gas processes we can no longer tolerate?
We can argue all day about the legal niceties of civil trespass (Cuadrilla have been guilty of that too or were you not aware of that) and civil procedures, but nothing is going to change the huge amount of self-inflicted damage that Tina being sent to Styal for 2 weeks will cause.
They still have a day to see sense ….
… ‘self-inflicted damage’ – I take it that you mean to Cuadrilla, not Tina.
Eloquently described there refracktion. Yes it was a self-inflicted indictment but her ego and naivety got the better of her. Her protester friend left her fending for herself. And her ego to refuse simple court order. Last chance for her.
Er TW – I was of course referring to Cuadrilla inflicting damage on themselves – boy was I right LOL
I think she knows what she is doing. The law never gets changed by emotive language or moral arguments. It is only through court cases being challenged and escalated – and it will only take one or two more high profile endorsements to get Cuadrilla to see sense. Otherwise a couple of weeks behind bars won’t be much for a woman of her stamina.