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? 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713509/Scientist-claims-fracking-dangerous-argues-against-drilling-applications-fraud-lied-credentials.html
KISHENY is there a question mark ( ? ) over this ?????
DO YOU want to take a chance on it ????
Climate change: ‘Hothouse Earth’ risks even if CO2 emissions slashed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-45084144
THIS IS SERIOUS
Well well, what do we have here eh?
Ah, i see, another smear campaign that has all ready been disproved right here on Drill Or Drop. Twice I believe?
Sad.
Desperation wrapped up in deviation wrapped up in diversion.
Sadder.
Nothing better to say than personal attack to smear only one of the authors?
No technical argument to attempt to disprove the evidence is there? Just an all ready discredited personal smear?
Saddest.
Playing the man not the ball as usual?
Someone wants to sweep this away don’t they? It is clear who runs the Daily Mail isn’t it?
No dog poisoning or vandalised rigs or ASD children to drag into this today?
Must be more dregs down there at the bottom of the ever more desperate PR barrel surely?
Apparently not?
Panic setting in! The squeals and the insults get loader as there is little left to say.
Chill. We will shortly see what there is to see. I recognise you are excited regarding the prospect. Not long to wait-patience. Tempus does fugit, and this point was always going to be reached. You have had plenty of time to prepare but it doesn’t seem to have been put to much use.
A last tantrum at PNR and a successful frack. (Possible.) The media would have a field day.
Awww? Still panicking eh? Smears not working?
Never mind, soon be over.
Then we can all go back to building a truly renewable future for our future children and cleaning up the mess at the industries expense.
Well the mist is clearing and the sun is out again, time for a swim.
Have a nice day!
Presumably these members of the House of Lords can afford their gas bills, unlike many working people.
This week OFGEM has pushed up the price cap for vulnerable customers by £47 a year following on from a £57 pound increase just 6 months ago. Another increase of £68 per year is expected soon. So a total increase of £172 per year. Analysts say the increases are the result of increased wholesale prices and green subsidies. Now U.K. shale gas development will not immediately reduce U.K. prices but surely, for the sake of reducing fuel poverty, we should be allowing onshore exploration to continue unfettered
So it’s a good job shale will fail otherwise the poor ba&$tards bills will go up; not that it would ever reach the market as clearly destined for other uses……
More good news, wind and solar massively reduced in price; tipping point reached; still some impact [very small] but compared to dirty shale?
Even more good news, nuclear, still not up to par, increasing costs will bury the outdated technology, not the waste…
And finally; still the same rhetoric anti antis? No new attack plan; getting very snoring on here; all your ‘Russian fuel poverty cheap ingenuous clean gas’ arguments shot down in a puff of toxic finite smoke, all the tyrannical, anti-democracy fake news shown up for what it is. Bring on the direct action, after all it’s only money; upholding our human right to protest peacefully, democracy and a safe planet are far more important.
Let’s be straight about it, oil and gas companies are the enemies of ALL people and their policies will murder millions, push the planet into irrecoverable climate and eradicate the human race; energy security must be in the hands of the people, 85% choose green.
Disgusting how much the UK workforce have to pay to subsidies the fossil fuel industry.
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/06/04/uk-worst-g7-countries-hiding-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report
Let’s be straight about it. These green activists are enemies of working people, their policies will add to fuel poverty and push the U.K.’ s energy security more nearly into the hands of Putin and Middle Eastern autocratic head choppers.
Good points Shalewatcher. Remember also that UK industry produces UK tax that can be utilised to assist fuel poverty eg. I know a number of elderly individuals who live in fuel poverty but have money in a savings account, which they will not dip into because they fear the costs of care. That is a very common situation. Equally, a Sovereign Wealth Fund can be utilised for all sorts of uses/causes-if we had one. And, of course, those around the sites will be rolling in it so they will have no financial issues!
Jack seems to not recognise the bigger picture, for his own reasons, but the working people are not as ignorant as some make out. Certainly two thirds of them show good sense.
WELL , WELL what do we have here Ladies and Gentlemen ……Its the caring pro-frackers MARTIN and SHALEWATCHER , maybe we have these two all wrong .
It would apoear that their endless quest for Fracking in the UK is not driven for their own financial gain , it’s driven for their love and compassion for the poor, and vulnerable members of our society.
PLEASE, PLEASE ….. Phil C , Sherwulfe show these two some LOVE , they are the caring Pro-fr.ackers .
Actually it’s a bit of both. But is it possible that investors who seek some personal gain might also care about the poor and the environment. It’s not an either/or.
BTW wind and solar power are reducing in price, and who wouldn’t support energy production with near zero marginal cost, that’s a no-brainer. The interesting question is how electricity is supplied on windless nights etc. The subsidies for green energy (now hopefully diminishing) and the near zero marginal cost of renewables means that new investment in competition from gas or nuclear is not economic, BUT who pays for the supply of continuous electricity which I presume everyone accepts we need. It seems that the economics of energy production has been so distorted by tax incentives for offshore oil and gas and high pre-agreed prices for renewables that now there is no level playing field and, as a previous Government Minister said, no new large investment in electricity production is possible without some form of government subsidy. Some people have suggested that we need two basic tariffs, one for electricity on demand when you want it and one for electricity when it can be supplied ie when the suppliers can provide it. I don’t know the answer but certainly at the moment it’s the consumer whose paying for green subsidies to the tune of, I gather, about £1.5 BILLION a year.
Well, Sherwulfe, I’m sure you will be there! LOL.
Some were at Newbury. It still happened. Most of the nonsense during the process was subsequently found to be nonsense. The public now say “what was the fuss about. Why wasn’t it done a lot earlier”.
So today, your starter for 10….
A question.
Is it possible that this injunction will actually create more protesters per incident?
Why would that be you ask?
Well, here’s your scenario.
Direct action stops a delivery.
1. So, Cuadrilla or Ineos or a contractor company says it has lost money.
2. This would have to be proven.
3. Amount set.
4. Legal costs possibly awarded (individually).
So if the potential loss was assessed at £10,000 and you have 4 protesters then this amount would be divided between them and result in a figure of £2500 each (plus possible legal costs); a hundred protesters however would only have to pay £100 each plus legal costs, clog up the courts and make a more interesting news story?
And the fear mongering threat to losing homes and assets – empty; the court will award damages and then the liable will petition for affordable payments. pay on time, no problem; if circumstances change then petition again – don’t pay – that’s when the trouble starts, same as if you don’t pay taxes (unless you are offshore in your yacht, of course)….so you see, the general public CAN have a voice; it just costs money.
It would cost a lot more than you indicate Sherwulfe, especially if someone was in Contempt of Court having stated that was their deliberate intention. The antis were told a long while ago there are reactions available for actions. If you believe the Courts are not aware of such potential, and will not use their powers to prevent it, then keep the incitement going. But, be ready to take the consequences if you lead someone into a situation they did not expect. Good luck with that.
Do you have the exact costs Martin, would be interested to compare?
This will clearly be demonstrated with the six protesters currently being processed. The argument will be human rights against civil rights don’t you think? Will be an interesting test.
You didn’t answered the question though……
Oh dear Jack!
You have yet to tell me where I might make a personal gain from fracking. INEOS-no. Third Energy (Barclays Bank)-no. Cuadrilla-no.
Perhaps you just think my posts are so professional that I must be receiving remuneration?-no, but thanks for the compliment if that is the case.
Perhaps you might be employed, directly or indirectly, within the “alternative” energy sector? I don’t really care. That you wanted to deflect from headlines of “Most vulnerable customers brace for an increase in energy bills” is a much more evident explanation.
YES , I suppose the knife cuts both ways MARTIN .
YOU may well work for a PR company , an Oil and Gas company, or be a Shale investor.
I may well work for an alternative energy PR company , be employed in the alternative energy sector, or be an investor, I’m NOT ……. but who’s really going to know that on here .
MOVING ON MARTIN , in my previous post I went through in detail , why Fracking in the UK would not reduce energy bills. I even supplied a number of links supporting what I had said….. Do I need to cut and paste then again for you ?????
It’s sad that we find ourselves in a period of endless energy price rises , but then maybe ALL the (( low hanging fruit has been picked )) easy to reach Oil and Gas has been extracted .
What we can be certain of is that we are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel if we need to use a form of fossil fuel extraction that is polluting , costly and energy intensive like fracking.
Whilst you bring up the point again about ” vulnerable customers ” please explain how these billions of vulnerable people will cope with runaway climate change, as a result of our continued , uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels ????
Temperature swings to hit poor countries hardest
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180503142732.htm
I’m sorry MARTIN the party’s over. The world has run out of time….. For the sake of future generations and the human race in general we have to bite the bullet and make a 100% shift towards renewable energy .
This is how your world could end.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/09/this-is-how-your-world-could-end-climate-change-global-warming
OH SORRY ……. MARTIN ,
NEARLY FORGOT
In response to your above post asking ” where you might make a personal gain from fracking ” That answer us VERY SIMPLE.
You could be one of the long standing Igas investors that are heavily down on their investment,
AS WE ALL KNOW ……… From a share price of about £1.60 it went down to about 4.5 pence ….. It was then diluted in to oblivion and re-listed , I think at about 76 pence ….. At its current price of £1.05 it would make its true value for the previous long term investors at about 6.5 pence ( give or take a few fractions of a penny )
Yes , we can see why some on here would say , do or sacrifice almost anything to try and kick start the shale gas industry in the UK.
Yes, the knife cuts both ways, but it will still be used as a weapon. Not a problem to me, as it produces nothing other than a signal.
Your habit, Jack, of taking a link and attaching it to your own view, still doesn’t make it true, or any better than speculation. Equally, I could post a selected link stating where my football club will finish this season and say that is also my view, so it is fact. It isn’t and time will tell how close it is.
As a retired old chap I lunch occasionally with a recently retired University lecturer, who banned the use of such sources to new students until they had learned to avoid that hazard. For example, MAYBE a minority want to stand on top of the remaining low hanging fruit and stop it being harvested? Couldn’t suggest that could we, because that would make them look very selfish, wouldn’t it? Low hanging fruit in the N. Sea is probably true (fruit de mere?) and we could see the further consequences of that if oil prices fall back.
Whilst the economics for UK shale gas are yet to be shown, that is not the case for sites such as Wressle, but that is conveniently forgotten. So, I have difficulty with your reasoning there. It seems to be a tad selective.
But, hey ho, we are getting somewhere near to the beginning of finding out and then we may see this discussion site festooned with facts and the speculation melt away! That could be interesting.
But you don’t post any links Martin, so that theory cannot be tested.
Am sure you are confused Martin. This blog is about our own views, the links therefore are relevant to that view, as done in any research. I thought you were involved with a paper at an institution somewhere; did they not link evidence to their opinions?