Baroness Jones. Photo: Still from video by High Def Media Inc
A Dame and a Baroness have said they are willing to break the injunction against protests outside Cuadrilla’s shale gas site near Blackpool.
The fashion designer, Dame Vivienne Westwood, and the Green Party Peer, Baroness Jenny Jones, made their threat as Cuadrilla prepares to frack the UK’s first horizontal shale gas well.
Hydraulic fracturing at the site at Preston New Road is expected within weeks.
The company has also applied for government consent for the second well.
In a Twitter campaign, launched yesterday, Baroness Jones said:
“I’m obviously a very law-abiding citizen until the law doesn’t make sense anymore. And while I wouldn’t advocate anyone breaking the law, I actually would be prepared to come up to Preston New Road and break the injunction because I think it is a misguided way to prevent protest and so I wish everyone at Preston New Road a huge amount of luck and goodwill and I hope that if the injunction is broken Cuadrilla sees sense and doesn’t prosecute.”
DrillOrDrop understands that Dame Vivienne, a long-standing campaigner against fracking, is also willing to breach the injunction. Earlier this year, she modelled clothes with anti-fracking slogans at a catwalk show outside Ineos headquarters in Knightsbridge.
Sources close to Dame Vivienne said today:
“Vivienne Westwood has said she will join Baroness Jenny Jones in breaking the Cuadrilla injunction.
“Her attention was first alerted by the Ineos injunction. Now the cancer is spreading to Cuadrilla. They, like Ineos, are acting in an undemocratic way, buying the law to deter people from their human right to protest against fracking”.
Anti-fracking cat walk show outside Ineos headquarters on 15 February 2018. Photo: Talk Fracking
Today, the Green Party’s co-leader and sole MP, Caroline Lucas, tweeted:
“When the democratic deficit is so enormous, people are left with very little option but to take peaceful, non-violent direct action.”
Legal action against injunction breach
Last month, Cuadrilla said it would take legal action against the first challenge to the injunction (DrillOrDrop report).
Six anti-fracking protesters locked themselves together outside the site entrance on 24 July 2018. They described their action as “a deliberate attempt to highlight the abuse of the law by Cuadrilla”.
The company said the protesters “unlawfully blocked the entrance” of the site “clearly breaching the terms of the High Court injunction”.
A company spokesperson said:
“Cuadrilla will make a committal application to the Court in respect of each of the people who breached the injunction, which sets out the breaches of the injunction with supporting evidence.
“A hearing will be listed by the High Court at which those who breached the injunction will be summoned to appear.
“A Judge will consider the applications and hear any evidence that those who breached the injunction wish to submit in their defence and will then decide whether they committed contempt of court and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
“The range of penalties includes, fines, seizure of assets and custodial sentences of up to two years.”
The injunction was granted on 11 July 2018 (DrillOrDrop report) against a range of protest actions outside the site by “persons unknown”.
Cuadrilla has repeatedly said it was not seeking to prevent lawful protest. The High Court order specifically outlaws trespass, lock-on, slow-walking and lorry surfing protests, tactics that have been used in anti-fracking direct actions across England. It also prohibited “unlawful disruption” of named Cuadrilla suppliers.
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Go for it ladies!
Would really like to see the press comments if someone who sits in the House of Lords to take part in producing laws can only focus on those that suit her own agenda. Sewing designer mail bags could also be an option.
A representative of the people, for the people (to borrow a phrase), including the two thirds who do not oppose fracking.
Or the small minority that support fracking and the 49% with no view either way?
[Comment corrected at poster’s request]
An injunction is civil law and it’s remedy is damages (money); failure to pay the damages becomes a criminal offence.
This would suggest that breaking this injunction is akin to a parking fine……
Martin Collyer: Have you any concern for the fact that starting a new UK fracking industry will add to global carbon emissions from gas (a high carbon fossil fuel with life-cycle C-emissions at least half that of coal? And similar to coal if c.3% is lots as fugitive emissions).
My post below links to a study by climate scientists showing that we have to urgently and rapidly decrease burning gas to comply with the Paris Agreement. A fracking industry will put the UK on a track above our 2 degrees upper limit, and this paper shows that climate tipping points are likely to be around that 2 degrees, though with an uncertainty that likens fracking and more fossil fuels to “playing Russian Roulette”. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
Something that is lawful does not make it right. The attack on democratic rights at many levels by this government to force fracking through are shameful. And whilst I fully expect the predictable objections from those in favour of shale, I suggest they step back for a while and consider how many rights and benefits we enjoy today because citizens were willing to challenge the law through protest, direct action etc and what sort of world we would inhabit if the hadn’t. You cannot fight climate change and allow fracking extraction of shale gas means more fossil fuels will be burnt as it just adds to the global fossil fuel supply.
If they break the law or injunctions then they should have their titles removed.
‘If they break the law or injunctions then they should have their titles removed’
If they pollute the atmosphere and water, deliberately speed up climate change, decimate the countryside and devalue property they should be held liable.
How about removing the titles of all the lords who think it is ok to do that.
Incredible how Martin Collyer and others pro-fracking such as the Tory government, have failed to be reminded by the recent widespread global losses to habitat, human and wild-life etc from the heatwaves and fires, that we need to urgently and rapidly reduce our extraction and burning of fossil fuels INCLUDING GAS, for the UK to be compliant with a path below + 2 degrees and the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, according to climate scientists at the not far and away Tyndall Centre at Manchester: http://www.foeeurope.org/NoRoomForGas
A new big UK fracking industry would so obviously add to global emissions from extracted gas (gas has a carbon footprint at least half that of coal) – going in the opposite way we need to go. The UK’s gas consumption has mostly been decreasing over recent years largely from increased efficiency, and significant decreases are technically viable. We don’t need fracking, but do need to decrease fossil gas.
The government and Cuadrilla are both clearly undermining the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement which the UK has signed up to. Good luck to the Dame and Baroness!
Earth is ‘1C away from Hothouse State that threatens the future of humanity’
https://news.sky.com/story/earth-is-1c-away-from-hothouse-state-that-threatens-the-future-of-humanity-11463536
Taking out the injunction was an admission of failure and a desperate measure by Cuadrilla that is backfiring on them. It did not stop the Block around the Clock 48 hr + mass protest in June, it did not stop the lock on in August, and did not stop the hold up of lorries last Wednesday. Now it is gifting anti frackers with another PR boost with high status backing to challenge the injunction on the ground. With a hosepipe ban still likely in the Autumn and signs of human induced climate change growing daily, government releasing a report 3 years late on air pollution from fracking, there has never been a worse time for the government and Cuadrilla to try and sell fracking to the public. And Cuadrilla’s legal bill just keeps on growing.
Well Henry, are we not already meeting our Paris Agreement commitments? Yes.
Are other much bigger contributors? No
Any chance of them doing so in the near future? No.
A very expensive comfort blanket you want the good people of the UK to pay for, that has too many holes in it to keep anyone warm. Tell you what, like the Swansea Tidal Lagoon, you pay for it. Perhaps you would also pay for the poorest in society who will fall prey to the rising energy cap in October? Otherwise, this winter we will see more unnecessary deaths from health issues connected to energy poverty. Perhaps the two ladies assets will assist?
I hope your maths. are a bit better than you logic. We already import large quantities of gas. A new source of gas in UK means we import less. (That has already been proven with fracking in USA.) Maybe INEOS would not have had to invest $10 billion to bring gas from elsewhere, which would mean the taxation due from them would be increased. Whether we end up using more is very unlikely, unless industry get’s it’s finger out. So obviously-not. The gas we then don’t import, may then stay in the ground, but that is another matter. The gas we might produce also generates taxation that might just help some of the frail, elderly who suffer energy poverty to be able to be looked after a bit better.
Actually the Swansea Tidal Lagoon represents much greater long-term value to taxpayers than the governments so-called nuclear renaissance. This will cost the taxpayer significantly more, not to mention the massive toxic radioactive waste storage costs for millennia. This article here gives a very interesting summation of the government’s corrupt collusion with nuclear and fossil fuel “status quo” industries: https://bhesco.co.uk/blog/swansea-tidal-lagoon-hinkley-point
Household and business energy efficiency/ insulation/ renewable and battery storage investment would be a much better way to promote energy generating independence, reduce energy consumption and fuel poverty due to increasing bill costs to energy companies. The cheapest form of energy is the more popular onshore wind, but government is blocking this in favour of unwanted fracking. There is no one silver bullet but a diversity of methods away from damaging fossil fuels and enormously expensive nuclear is key.
Oh there you go again Martin Collier, having our own fuel reserves will never give us “cheap” fuel it will always driven by share prices. You have never been able to argue informatively when it comes to environmental concerns. Sadly, you have but one agenda and that is MONEY!!! you try in vain to discredit anyone who gives fudge about the environment and the health and wellbeing of our planet. You have a sad and narrow minded life because you actually don’t do anything to help protect what is truely important. When you and your pro fracking friends spout off your rhetoric trying to convince the greenies and informed citizens who are apose to further exploration for O&g, all you end up doing is making a yourselves look desperate and stupid. What say you,… when (not if) an earthquake is felt and like Prese iHall in 2011 causes structural damage somewhere?
MARTIN ,
I’m deeply moved by your concern for the ” frail and elderly ” that may find themselves in fuel poverty..
Please let me alleviate some of your concerns on the matter, so that you can direct your energy to helping the ” frail and elderly ” in a different way.
( 1 ) Oil and Gas prices are pegged to the US dollar . Therefore our top heavy energy costs are CLEARLY down to high UK taxation , … Any energy we produce in the UK from Fracking , will be subject to the same taxation .
DO YOU think the UK rate of taxation on fuel will go down in the future MARTIN ???? I certainly don’t.
Therefore the cost of energy to the ordinary consumer will NOT go down …
( 2 ) Fracking is a costly , energy intensive way of obtaining fossil fuels and whilst there is easier and lower cost ways to obtain it via the pipeline from Europe …… It will NOT be competitive enough .
We currently receive 44% of our gas from Europe and Norway through a pipeline….. We trade with Europe and the rest of the world , therefore ANY GAS we produce will go on to the open market and be sold to the highest bidder ….. PRICES WILL NOT go down for UK consumers….
Experts agree fracking won’t cut energy bills, ad watchdog rules
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/20/experts-agree-fracking-wont-cut-energy-bills-ad-watchdog-rules/
FRACKING WON’T BRING DOWN THE BILLS.
https://www.fuelpovertyaction.org.uk/fracking-wont-bring-down-the-bills/
Osborne: Fracking may not slash household energy bills
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26030204
Lord Browne: fracking will not reduce UK gas prices
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/29/browne-fracking-not-reduce-uk-gas-prices-shale-energy-bills
MARTIN ,
If you are really concerned about the wellbeing of the ” frail and elderly ”
( 1 ) Then I suggest you would be better placed directing your energy to lobbying the government to reduce the current rate of fuel taxation for the more vulnerable members of our society.
UNLESS . ……… THE ONLY OTHER WAY WOULD BE TO………NAH SURELY NOT.
The only other way would be to completely turn the whole of the Desolute North , Sorry, Northern England in to one GREAT BIG pin cushion littered Gas field ..
MAYBE, just MAYBE then, that would knock a minute fraction of our gas bills .
I suggest you stick with action plan ( 1 ), the lobbying of the government .
Yes, Ian, looks like a failure, with test fracking now days away. Keep on fiddling-but the ship still goes down.
It’s raining, and more on the way. I believe the hose pipe ban has already been suspended. Grasping at damp straws.
Two thirds of the public don’t seem to require much selling currently whilst they await what will mean something to them-results. Trying to prevent those results now is counter productive, but that will be ignored because the minority has to continue to try and impose their view even when it is nearly over. You need to be careful about who will get the bad PR out of the suggested action.
Music to my ears, the keywords are; Dame, Baroness and breach.
Rather than the industries own Shame Barrenness and Creep no doubt?
These ladies have something that the anti antis and their industry cannot match either don’t they?
Bravery, Courage, and Conviction of their beliefs.
But perhaps it will be only the twisting of the “conviction” aspect that will be on Cuadrillas agenda won’t it?
Bravery and courage and conviction of their beliefs being somewhat absent in evidence in any of Cuadrillas actions to date?
Conviction conviction conviction seems to be all they are interested in.
One earthquake which will happen and it will be game over for Fracking
“Go ahead. Make my days.” Clints Eastwood.
The phrase “go ahead, make my day(?)” was written by Charles B. Pierce, an independent filmmaker who is credited with “story by” in the film Sudden Impact. The actual origins of the phrase came from Pierce’s father Mack, who used to tell him as a child, “Just let me come home one more day, without you mowing that lawn, son just go ahead…..make my day”.
Puts it more in perspective doesn’t it?
Clint(?) Eastwood only spoke the lines from the script, he did not write the words.
Think you need to mow that lawn again. No magnum required, though an ice cream lolly would be nice?