Anti-fracking protest outside shale gas site continues into third day


181002 pnr blockade Eddie Thornton 3

Protest outside Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 2 October 2018. Photo: Eddie Thornton

A protest outside Cuadrilla’s shale gas site near Blackpool has reached its third day.

The nine-person blockade in the site entrance on Preston New Road began in the early hours of Monday morning (DrillOrDrop report)

Seven people were originally locked together on the ground and two were on tripods. They said the protest was in solidarity with three men jailed last week for an anti-fracking protest in Preston New Road in July 2017.

The protest is in an area covered by a High Court injunction against designated anti-fracking actions.

At the time of writing, Lancashire Police said two people remain locked-on in front of the site. A contraflow was still in force on Preston New Road.

The force said two people had been arrested today. A spokesperson for Cuadrilla would not comment on individual case but said the company would “absolutely take action whenever this is feasible”.

Images from Monday 1 October 2018

Images from Tuesday 2 October 2018

Images from Wednesday 3 October 2018

79 replies »

  1. Peter Robots-Muriel did. I trust she is in her right consciousness. Just trying to be helpful. We wouldn’t want any information given to be out of context, would we?

    But, please tell us, given the seats from the last election, how would any party have produced a majority? Labour certainly wouldn’t have, because they would also have needed the same N.I. political party who would not have even entered into discussions. In the end, it has ended up quite well, as the N.Ireland border issue now has to be viewed as much from Belfast as from Westminster.

      • Please note, those who cry foul to the protestors; the Human Rights Act does not define what form protest can take, only that it is a right.

          • So Ruth Hayhurst.Paul seaman .One of your main protestorsTina Rothery has admitted she was wrong and opologised Why are you not highlighting this in a new post .Or is drilordrop so one sided .[edited by moderator]And remember these protestors at Preston Road are breaking the law highlight that too in new post

            • I asked Ruth the same question last night through private channels, one of the biggest Anti fracking stories of the year and she decides not to report it. After the foul mouthed attack by Rothery I suspect Ruth was warned off (threatened) by Tina or her elk too and cowered away from informing people as any good independent journalist would do by reporting it! Really sad and goes to show even independent journalists are not independent!

            • It raises a potentially interesting question. Who exactly funds DrillOrDrop? They claim to be independent and that their journalism cannot be bought – well how about some transparency on exactly who is funding this propaganda machine?

              • As I have explained elsewhere, a brief precis and link to the Times report appears on our Headlines page, and we don’t have any information to add to the Times report.

                I can’t understand why an individual losing their temper on a protest line and then apologising is seen as such as a big story, nor how this is relevant to the discussion on fracking.

                A few years back, we didn’t cover a foul-mouthed outburst by a fracking supporter, and removed references to it from comments as we considered this irrelevant to the debate on whether or not fracking should go ahead.

                It’s easy to be “outraged” over things which happen (particularly when you weren’t there and have only a YouTube video for evidence), but perhaps we should all reflect that everyone is human and sometimes tempers fray with unfortunate results. I really don’t see the story in that.

                Regarding funding – we accept donations via the Donate button on each DrillOrDrop page. Donations fund Ruth’s expenses attending planning enquiries, court cases and travelling to sites. Often Ruth is the only journalist present, and thanks to our generous donors things get reported which would otherwise be missed.

                We are what we are, and I would say, with the greatest of respect, if you don’t like the blog then go somewhere else, or maybe set up one of your own 🙂

            • Applying that same logic would mean that those who don’t like fracking should move somewhere where it is not taking place. Oh, hold on…they’re mostly already doing that, at least for their protesting.

              If I don’t like DoD’s coverage, or have suspicions about who fund this propaganda machine, I will choose to speak about it here and wherever else I like. Just as those who are anti O&G choose to speak up about their views.

              You won’t however find me locked onto a server farm in protest or sitting in front of your driveway impeding you from going about your daily business.

              So…in the interest of transparency…who is funding DoD? We know you take donations…but where is the money coming from? Russia?

            • I wonder ‘number plate’ if you have contributed to the site, or do you just post [edited by moderator] for free?

            • Paul…your avoidance of the question suggests something to hide.

              Transparency over who funds DoD would surely add credibility, unless your claims of not having dubious paymasters are simply hot air.

            • This Tina Rothery belong to the Green Party does she not Mr paul seaman The Green Party seem to support this sort of behaviour As they don’t want to suspend her from that party .So there is a story right there .[Edited by moderator]

            • ‘Gorden Slade’…
              If you had read the BG article you would have had the answer:
              ‘A Green Party spokesman said: “We have today been made aware of comments made by a Green Party member at a demonstration outside Conservative Party Conference. The comments made were inappropriate. The member has apologised unreservedly and expressed her deep regret at making them, in a spur of the moment emotional exchange, at an event she was attending in a personal capacity and not as a representative of the Green Party.

              “The Green Party does not condone these comments, and we acknowledge that a full apology has been made. No further action is currently being taken.”

              [Edited by moderator]

        • Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

          Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others.

          No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime.
          This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

          So, you can protest peacefully as is your right. But when you stray beyond that, then that right is superseded by the laws of the land.
          if you obstruct a highway, or prevent a person or company going about its lawful business, or endanger the public or cause disorder, your Article 11 rights become meaningless and rightly so. You cannot use Article 11 as a shield to protect you against prosecution for unlawful acts.

          • John. Thank you for your post. If you read mine, you will see that it is only about the right to protest.

            It seems on here that there are those, who may even be construed as ‘protesting’ in their own right on this platform.

            We must all understand the right to protest; it is available only due to ‘protestors’ taking steps beyond the state laws to bring a particular issue to the attention of those in the state that can make the changes needed to ensure that we have equality and safety (also covered by the HR Act), – the vote for all, worker’s rights, rights to education e.t.c) – when they perceive an injustice.

            It is part of the democratic process; sure, those who participate in protest, must weigh up the consequences of their actions – for the Frack Free Four I believe the main ‘harm’ was in peoples pockets, which can be recompensed – the protest about the use of another fossil fuel on a planet groaning under the strain, which is killing ecosystems, causes conflicts and wars and the eventual destruction of the human race weights heavy against the latter. Sadly the judge did not see fit to weigh up the motivation against the action, but then neither did the judges of the suffragettes……

            As a note on ‘peaceful protest’, the two most famous uses of this were by Ghandi and also the Civil Rights Movement in the US. These strategies were brought in purely to protect those who, previously, had been beaten – sometimes to death- by the authorities, for standing up for their human rights [some of which were already legislated but ignored by the state].

            There is currently the Climate Act which legislates against increased fossil fuel burn; perhaps the governance need to read it again?

  2. It’s a common fake argument now John. Not just around this issue but others as well. Seems just conflate mob rule with a democratic right afforded by the Human Rights Act, and anything goes.

    As you point out, if anyone bothered to look at the Human Rights Act they would see that is incorrect. Unfortunately for some, they find that out the hard way.

  3. A better example Sherwulfe is the Newbury bypass. Similar in many respects. Too many to go into but you can research it.

    Now, traffic flows smoothly, less pollution, big improvement to the local and national economy, property prices up, flora and fauna improved. Large numbers of high pay jobs created subsequently also. Only downside is washing powder sales as locals do not need to wash their net curtains after every bank holiday.

    Same false arguments and “rights” claimed, but progress happens as process is eventually sorted. Swampy remembered, but no memorial.

  4. Well, the “outcome” is pretty obvious to all. I lived in Newbury at the time so I was a witness to what actually happened, that’s why I refer to it Sherwulfe. Experiencing reality is quite useful. But, you can always check such details as “rare snails” requiring new homes, then to be found as common as muck. Or, all those trees being cut down, but numbers replanted greater than numbers cut down. Or, you can drive along the A34 now and see the Red Kites following it south because it has created a nice corridor of verges to feed from. (Remind you of wheel washing, owls, badgers etc.?)

    And, I am sure that today Giggle, or some other source, could explain how HGVs blocked for 3-4 hours actually produce more emissions than if they can do the same few miles in 10-15 minutes. The people of Newbury (the silent majority) knew that from experience but they rarely made the news-not exciting enough.

    To be honest, the locals found the Greenham Common ladies much more acceptable, even though they left a rather pungent smell of wood smoke around the shops. There was also sympathy for the young servicemen and what their instructions were if the deployment exercises turned to something more serious. Yes, always the “other side” to consider.

  5. More than one of you, Sherwulfe? Heaven help humanity.

    (we-the cosy blanket pulled around an individual. Also found in the animal kingdom where mass is exaggerated as a defence mechanism. Usually exposed very quickly, eg. I am, we are. A minority complex.)

    Sorry, I used to do this as a living. Language, as well as body language, can be very informative.

    • Well, I/we never? Animals wearing blankets? Who’d have thought, and exposing themselves? Shocking!

      You tell us you have done many things for a living; am amazed you can read body language across the digital divide…..

      p.s you don’t have to apologize about what you do to yourself to earn a crust.

      • pps, the ‘we’ referred to you and me, but if your not comfortable with that, best not get too familiar in future, eh?

        • Hate people using websites as a comfort blanket for there sad lives .They need to get a life not live through a bunch of traveling protestors disrupting people lives where ever they go .Wasting tax payers money on their golly sad trip through life .Then go live back to mummy daddy comfortable oil gas guzzlers life when times get uncomfortable .Not mentioning any names But you know who you are

          • Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning GS?

            You may need to talk this anger through with a friend; it’s not healthy.

            Please mention names and give them a chance to put their views forward.

  6. Well, that’s the problem with assuming for someone else, Sherwulfe. I am already where I want to be. If you wish to be in the same place that is a little surprising, but welcome. One sinner who repents etc.

    • I’ll have a vote with me, myself and I, to see if two thirds want to be where you are…..
      Drum roll………………………………………………………………………………………………
      No, thanks 🙂

Leave a Reply to Paul Seaman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s