Anti-fracking campaign opposes government plan to outlaw unauthorised camps

180722 Tinker Lane Protection Camp TLPC

Tinker Lane Protectors Camp, 22 July 2018. Photo: Tinker Lane Protectors Camp

Government proposals to criminalise unauthorised camps would undermine freedom to protest against fracking and the onshore oil and gas industry, campaigners have argued.

A public consultation, which ends just before midnight on Wednesday 4 March 2020, seeks views on whether police should be given greater powers to outlaw camps.

The government is seeking to criminalise the act of trespassing when setting up an unauthorised encampment in England and Wales.

The proposals, from the Home Office, would also allow police to remove people from land, such as grass verges, that form part of the highway.

In the past eight years, opponents of onshore oil and gas have established camps to protest about developments across the UK, including in Lancashire, North and East Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, West Sussex, Surrey, Cheshire and Salford.

Some of the camps have been on grass verges. Others have been on private land. Many camp residents have collected information about activities at the oil and gas sites.

The government consultation said:

“we would like to test the appetite to go further and broaden the existing categories of criminal trespass to cover trespassers on land who are there with the purpose of residing in their vehicle for any period, and to give the police the relevant powers to arrest offenders in situ and to seize any vehicles or other property on existing unauthorised encampments (or those in the process of being set up) immediately.”

The campaign group, Frack Off London, said today:

“This proposal is a major concern as any new legislation criminalising trespass will impact on our freedom to protest. Campaigners seeking to reside on land for the purposes of protest are likely to be criminalised from the outset.

“To provide the police rights to prevent and disrupt protest camps, exposing those involved to a greater risk of harassment, violence and arrest, is wrong. These proposed changes have the potential to further undermine our human rights to protest against the ever-expanding environmental destruction caused by fossil fuel industries.”

One campaigner from the group said:

“The government consultation is not only aimed at those residing on land but potentially our protest camps.

“Our protector camps are absolutely necessary and have proved incredibly effective in slowing down these environmentally destructive industries.

“Any increased powers given to the police will infringe on our right to protest as campaigners seeking to reside on land for the purposes of protest are likely to be criminalised from the outset.”

In a response to the proposals, Frack Off London said:

“The police already have enough powers to deal with unauthorised encampments and the government’s proposal would criminalise Gypsies’ and Travellers’ nomadic way of life.

“There is no justification for this and it treats an entire community with contempt and encourages us to treat Gypsies and Travellers as separate from the general public, and they are already some of the most marginalised and persecuted in the UK.”

52 replies »

  1. So it’s OK to dig up a grass verge which is designed to provide sanctuary fir pedestrians and cyclists in order to create a convenient parking place for large police vehicles whilst waiting for business at the nearby unwanted Cuadrilla test fracking site? Usually with idling engines polluting the air nearby by the way!
    But the 24hr observation camp, safely established for over two years without incident opposite, which recorded multiple breaches of operating conditions by the same Cuadrilla and their contractors, embarrassing all concerned especially Lancashire County Council, would not be allowed to operate in future!
    How convenient for the frackers! Mind you this would be in keeping with the declated function of the Oil and Gas Authority to push fracking ahead no matter what the cost and inconvenience to local residents.

    • “Common Law vs Statutes
      Living by the Rule of Law

      by Roger Hayes

      Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute?

      In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
      Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

      The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.

      – All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

      – A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

      – The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

      – There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

      – Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

      – Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

      – Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

      – The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

      – The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

      – A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

      – Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

      – If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

      – It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.

      – If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

      – Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

      – Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

      – Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

      – Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

      – Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.

      – We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

      – We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.


      – Law refers to common law.

      – Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.

      – Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.

      – Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.

      – Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.

      – Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.

      – Laws are used to keep the peace.

      – Without law we have anarchy.

      – The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.

      – Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.

      – Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

      – Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.

      – Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.

      Courts, Judges And Juries
      – If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.

      – Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

      – Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

      – Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

      – The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

      – A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

      – If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

      – A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

      – The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

      – Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.

      – Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

      – Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

      – Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

      – Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

      – If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.

      The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

      – Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

      – Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

      – The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

      – In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

      – The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

      – In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

      – You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.

      – If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.

      – Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.

      – A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

      – The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

      – Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

      – Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.

      KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
      This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.”

      • David King/Roger Hayes.
        Would you like to contact me please?
        Very soon I will probably be forced to commence Legal Action to force repairs to my earthquake damaged home to be undertaken.
        I would much appreciate some sound guidance.

          • Simon,

            That’s exactly what I’m doing and always do before ‘getting into bed’ with anyone!

            I’m wondering what the Moderator had to edit within your comment?

          • Hi Peter, apologies for not replying earlier, it’s been a very busy day so far. Don’t worry about Simons comments at all, it’s just typical that far from addressing the legal and lawful definitions in any way whatsoever, he just descends into the usual attempts to make defamatory claims against Roger Hayes and attempts to conflate that with myself. Not true of course, but since when has truth been a consideration from past performance from such as them?

            Not in my experience. You know who you are.

            Do you see how these people work? Sowing disinformation and defamatory rhetoric against the player rather than the ball, seems to be their only method of communication on any subject.

            Just for your information the text I quoted was chosen only to illustrate the true facts about the difference between the terms “legal” and “lawful” and only one amongst many. The two definitions are not at all the same as the text describes. I don’t have any connections with Roger Hayes or his website. I simply read that particular blog and quoted it since it states the truth about the difference between the terms “legal” and “lawful”. However since I did quote his blog and it seems unusually rational (no wiki required) considering the subject, I will contact him and ask what he would advise in your case and maybe ask him to contact you direct if that is OK?

            I have my own independent research on legal and lawful issues and I will give you those and back up links for you to consider so you can make up your own mind on that.

            I have to say that the title headline of this page is misleading, since it uses the word “unlawful” that is incorrect. The correct word would be “illegal” quite a different definition in law. Perhaps DrillorDrop could modify the wording of the headline-

            “Anti-fracking campaign opposes government plan to make unauthorised camps illegal.”

            That would be less misleading since we are talking legal and law definitions DrillorDrop. May I suggest that is changed DrillorDrop?

            Also you can look at the reports yourself upon the validity or otherwise of the “rationalwiki” website. Not entirely complementary by all accounts. One critique points out that “rationalwiki” tends towards attacking in emotional and hominem terms, the personages in any issue, rather than addressing the facts of the issue. Also that all the editors live in the same house? Maybe Simon would claim they all jump in the same bed together? You see how easy and lazy it is to make defamatory comments rather than concentrate on the issue at hand?

            You can of course make up your own mind on proponents of “rationalwiki” as having any objective content at all. Maybe consider the fossil fuel industry proponents on DriilorDrop that concentrate almost exclusively upon personal attacks you may consider whether they are also are of a very similar source or not.

            I will write to you directly Peter away from the usual misinformation and disinformation from those sources.

            • Whatever one thinks of ‘rational leaks’, it is difficult to get away from facts such as losing court cases and being made bancrupt

              • Simon Maynard

                Its not “rational leaks”. The website, which you yourself contributed a link to, is “rationalwiki”. Perhaps if you are going to contribute and comment, i suggest that you get out of bed first. it seems that the facts of getting out of bed is is difficult to get away from.

                As for your term “bancrupt” is interesting considering the present fracking ban. Maybe you meant “bankrupt”. Though i suspect that the present fracking ban will be called “bancrupt” by me on this website from now on. I invite others to do the same.

                Well done Simon Maynard, you made me laugh at your verbal incompetence!

                • David – I’m in a rush but it’s great that you have so little to contribute to the argument that you have to resort to checking spelling. When I was an academic I noticed that some of my fellow staff did the same when they didn’t properly understand the content of theses they were marking – you’re not alone

                • Simon Maynard

                  Oh dear, lost your sense of humour too I see? Apparently you were in far too much of a rush to post anything “irrational”. More haste less speed perhaps. Irrationalwiki is a dodgy precedent to jump into bed with. Perhaps take more precautions. You don’t know where it’s been.

                  Well, maybe if you don’t want anyone to read precisely what you write, then perhaps you should say so? A verbal health warning maybe?

                  However, I’m happy to correct you if you are too lazy to check your own posts. My rates are quite reasonable, and rational.

                  But it’s much more enjoyable to treat it as a joke and have a good laugh about it isn’t it.

                  Pity you can’t see it that way. Maybe you are more like your fellow staff than you think?

                • Punctuation not amongst your gifts, though David!?

                  It can be guaranteed on this site that someone who claims superiority will show their own limits within that very claim.

                  Never been a good idea, or a good look, to attempt it. It is very noticeably what it is-ie. a poor attempt to elevate a post to a high ground that only exists in the poster’s imagination.

                  David-your English is certainly not perfect from your contributions on this site. And, neither is mine. I suggest any anti/social media platform is just the same. Maybe, if you want to claim superiority, best to do so via something to do with the subject? Or, even better, not to claim superiority but simply accept your views are just your views that are open to challenge?

                • Martin Collyer (or imaginary wife, or imaginary “other”)

                  I thought it wouldn’t be long before one of your own self proclaimed many alter egoes could resist the urge to jump into bed with Simon Maynard, Martin (or?). So l return the complements with humour and superior English and punctuation from your own contribution. I am more than happy to correct and redirect your words back you as necessary.

                  From past experience with those “contributions” provided in “your” posts, I see neither English, punctuation, accuracy, nor subject matter have been much in evidence at all Martin.

                  Those typical prevarications and avoidances of the facts as provided by those posts can be guaranteed on this site from someone who attempts to claim superiority. Such as the attempt we see here in your post. That will inevitably reveal those own proclaimed limits within those very own claims. Just as we see there above.

                  It’s never been a good idea to criticise others when so culpable yourself is it Martin. Not a good look at all to attempt it when so thoroughly compromised in that respect in your own posts.

                  It is very noticeable why that is. For example, when providing such a very poor attempt to elevate the post above post that you contribute to a higher ground that only exists in that poster’s imagination himself.

                  Martin – neither punctuation, nor English nor historical varacity is remotely perfect judging by your own contributions on this site.

                  May i suggest any anti truth oil and gas industry propaganda and disinformation here or on any social media platform is severely compromised by just the same failures.

                  Maybe, if you want to claim any form of subsequent superiority from such a dismally compromised past record. Perhaps it would be better to attempt to do so by contributing something to do with the subject rather than this dodgy avoidance of any such thing? A requirement which I see is totally absent from your post in this and in many other contributions.

                  Or, even better, do try to resist the urge to claim any superiority whatsoever by your own views when clearly those views are so severely damaged by association with past avoidances of any such thing. Which we can see are neither superior nor accurate, or rational.

                  Maybe it is yourself who should simply accept that only your own views are just only your own views on any subject including this one. All of those posts are clearly open to challenge. Not to mention the historical and quite hysterical failure and avoidance of admitting any culpability in that respect.

                  I am more than happy to return your compliments with bells on Martin, should you be so moved as to invite the opportunity again.

                  I sincerely hope you will find this rebuff and rejection beneficial in order to take and act on your own advice in future. In that way you may find it better to avoid any future embarrassments from such ridiculous comments as you provide here.

                  English, spelling and punctuation corrections of the original post provided free of charge.

                • I think I stated my English was less than perfect, David! So, absolutely not claiming any higher ground.

                  Why try and have an argument about something I did not state? Maybe reading should be added to your skills?

                  Or, could it be the old smoke screen game, again?

                  Oh yes, that seems to be the answer.

                  Foggy is reborn. Thanks for defining your approach. Noted.

                • Martin Collyer (or?)

                  It was you that said a short while ago, that you allowed your “wife and others” to use your name Martin. I am merely taking you at your own word. Don’t blame me for believing that you allow others to use your name if you freely admit to it.

                  I can see how that might be embarrassing to you though. And why you seek to conflate myself with others in such a way. Even though that does seem to be nothing more than an attempt to tar others with your own brush.

                  It’s not true however, but as we have seen before, truth is not exactly your forte as can be clearly demonstrated.

                  Everything you say attempts to claim the “higher ground” Martin, though maybe refering to oil and gas “grounds” maybe that should be “lower ground”.

                  It really doesn’t matter to me by what name you wish to be known as Martin or who or what posts under your name as you freely admitted.

                  However if you prefer to be known as “foggy” then that is how you shall be known. I think you are attempting to conflate that with someone else, but that would be typical of your past post truth behaviour wouldn’t it.

                  Your own words Martin have entrapped you Martin (or?) I am merely reminding you of your confession.

                  The rest of your post is the usual drivel and conspiracy theory.

                • Thanks for confirming your reading difficulty, David, but I believe that was already evident.

                  Meanwhile, if others are interested, they can read what was in text, and not said, so easy to verify the truth, or just reading difficulties.

                  Hmm, too much haste and the errors you find in others appear in your own offerings.

                  Perhaps, as Simon indicated, when in a hurry, errors do occur?

                  It didn’t take as long as I expected.

                  Hook, line and sinker. The wriggling should stop soon.

                  That was fun, on a rainy afternoon.

                • Martin Collyer

                  Whooahh there Martin! That one really jumped off the deep end into your own fantasy world didn’t it! And no safety net either. What a mess!

                  To anyone even attempting to discern any sense in Martins post above, I should warn you that you read that post at your own peril. The first steps a wayyy too big one without a safety net.

                  Apparently down there, if you should survive the fall of reason, any truth and logic have ceased to exist in any meaningful form.

                  Wherever that one crept out from, I shall throw it in the trash bin.

                  Fortunately most of us have better things to do. I suspect we all have better things to do than to bother with that don’t we.

                  Speaking of better things to do, I’ll reply to your post Peter, I contacted Roger Hayes for advice too.

            • Dear David. Thanks for your comment. The headline is: “Anti-fracking campaign opposes government plan to outlaw unauthorised camps”. It does not contain either unlawful or illegal. The government consultation is titled “Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments” – but I think that’s a little too long for a headline.

              • Dear Ruth,
                Hi. Thank you for your reply. Yes I agree, my bad. The word “unlawful” does not appear in the title, however the word “outlaw” does appear to be inserted in the title contrary to the government title which does not contain that word. But does contain the word “illegal”

                Forgive me for stretching the point, but there is not a law being prepared for consultation by the government and the law society. That would seek to overturn Common Law rights which would be a major change in UK public rights under Common Law. However from your report, there is a statute being prepared for consultation by the government which only seeks to contravene Common Law rights and would not overturn or replace it.

                I hope you appreciate the diffence in the terms and that the title as shown above could be considered to be misleading. Whereas the government consultation title as you give above is indeed correct and does not lead to any misunderstanding of its intent or content.

                It is your decision of course, and I only mention it to help to define the difference in legal definitions of the two terms, however they are stated.

                As you can see from the discussions above and with this point here, how careful we have to be with the correct terminology particularly with legal and law definitions, and to which I seem equally culpable as you quite correctly point out.

                • Dear David,

                  Quite easy to take part in the consultation. All part of our democratic process.

                  Only takes a few minutes.

                  Like all consultations, that will only be part of the process. But, a good place to start, and open to all.

                  As some say, “bin there, dun that.”

                  Then, if legislation still follows that some dislike they can claim before the next election that vast numbers will vote for a certain party to overturn such, and then find they don’t!

                  Ever such.

                • Martin Collyer

                  I was talking to Ruth, not you.

                  Whatever it was you attempted to say there however Martin, is so deeply and darkly obscured beneath a veil of confused and contradictory morass from which it emerged.

                  If by any chance you can translate it into some form of discernable English then I might be able to extract something that makes any sense, though I sincerely doubt that it does contain anything relevant in any format.

                  Unfortunately I am not conversant in Martin drivel speak, and I doubt if anyone else is either.

  2. With all the objections regarding disturbance of wild life from the antis., only reasonable they should abide by the same considerations.

    Less disturbance to such if the operator is allowed to complete work in a speedy manner, and less disturbance to the wildlife if no shrieking groups of antis. cavorting around the sites, flashing cameras and flying drones and then complaining about disturbance as they hang their undies on the fence for the required photography to take place.

    Good old precautionary principle. BOW will be very much in favour! LOL.

  3. The look of these photos on the post, does not endear me to want to live free and with out a care in the world! Are there camps not disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the countryside in which they are preaching shouldn’t be destroyed?, TBH it looks like hell on earth! Are there long term campers paying rent, council tax, lodgings?

    The tents and camps can be removed, and so will the rig and drill site be put back to its former glory.
    There will however be an approximate 8 ft wellhead at the drill site / per well which is no more unsightly than an electricity pylon which are approximately 50 meters tall.

  4. Eli-Goth, these observation and protection camps are not to be enjoyed. They are to protect against and bear witness to undemocratic chemical industry actions endangering Communities.

    • There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the chemical industry. We live in a parliamentary democracy and it is perfectly democratic and lawful for parliament to overrule local authorities, which they often do when local decisions go against the national interest. If this didn’t happen I doubt that there would be many developments in the UK as it’s population seem by and large to be NIMBYS

      • Simon,

        The overruling of the decision by Lancashire County Council to refuse Cuadrilla permission to resume test fracking, stopped in 2011 after numerous earthquakes were caused by frackiing in Lancashire, by Savid Javid in December, 2016, was most definitely Undemocratic! Lancashire at the time was a Labour controlled Council and Labour was and is totally anti-fracking for all the right reasons.

        Very interesting that you consider the majority of the population of the UK to be NIMBYS and the recent surveys about Public Attitude to Fracking show a great majority of those who claim to be fracking aware are AGAINST fracking for all the right reasons. Whereas those who claim to be PRO fracking continue to quote out of date and untrue government propaganda as their justification.

        • Peter, I certainly cannot see how a government overruling a local authority can be viewed as undemocratic when the government was voted in by the population. I really don’t see what’s difficult to understand about the government being allowed to take decisions based on the national good.

          Your interpretation of surveys is certainly different to mine. I’ve been given access to several detailed surveys of attitudes to fracking and the biggest thing that stands out is the impact of peoples scientific training on their opinion.

        • Peter-your deliberate, and clumsy, attempt to avoid the data that shows the MAJORITY of the UK population, from the Public Attitude Survey, are NOT against fracking, does you no favours whatsoever.

          If you want to take that approach into Court, where you can be questioned regarding your balance, then good luck.

          You might need it.

          • Martin,
            Last survey declared 1% of those surveyed strongly supported fracking, down from 6% in 2013 when Government propaganda was accepted as fact.
            About 43% didn’t hold a view and 44% opposed fracking.
            So there you go Martin.
            A survey assembles views from a limited number of random people, that’s the whole point.

            • Yes, from random people-WHICH YOU QUOTE REPEATEDLY IF IT SUITS, but you still refuse to accept the simple numbers that show over 50% are NOT against fracking.

              Keep on that tack, on a public platform, and then end up in the Courts and do not be surprised if it is used against you.

              But, that is your choice. If that happens, you can try and claim the legal system is rigged, but others may not be convinced.

    • pkr: its amazing the knowledgeable squatters at these camps, they seem to have all the time in the world between their 9am – 5pm careers to be able to contribute to ‘saving’ these endangered?! communities.

      • I wonder if John James Knox was a resident of the squatter camp at PNR? Perhaps Peter K roberts can let us know?

        ” DWP spokesman said: “Benefit fraud is a crime that diverts money from those who really need it. In addition to any sentence imposed by the court, people must pay back all the money they falsely obtained.”

        “The Department for Work and Penions said Knox was found to be claiming ESA as well as Disability Living Allowance for mobility, yet was overtly filmed partaking in demonstrations which included scaling moving lorries and mounting long demonstrations on top of them, while also shackling himself to other demonstrators for long periods of time.

        The overpayment of his personal independence payments (PIP) totalled almost £9,000.”

        Sentencing will be on March 9th – I look forward to a full report from Drill or Drop.

          • The “subsidy” that is being referred to is the reduction of VAT on electricity from 20 to 5% and this applies to both fossil fuels and renewables. It will be interesting how the NIMBYS on here react to some of methods that are being proposed to store energy from the wind farms

          • “Windfarm developers will need to comply with tough new proposals on community consent to qualify for the auction process. Those hoping to build a windfarm in England will also need the consent of the local community through existing planning codes.”

            So no change in England John……

            No significant onshore wind farms in England have been built for quite some time despite us continually being told how cheap it is, no subsidies required etc. So perhaps they have not been built because local communities don’t want it (when it is proposed on their door step). Bidding at auction for subsidies (sorry, guaranteed lifetime prices) against offshore wind won’t make any difference in England.

            But I am looking forward to cycling past hundreds of 150m wind turbines in the Flyde by Roseacre and Preston New Road in the near future. And of course the Ribble Valley should be filled with them.

            Note that we got what was effectively a ban on onshore wind in England without a single demonstration, swampy camp, lorry surf, benefits fiddle etc.

            • Paul,
              In my opinion the ban on onshore wind was put in place to safeguard the wellbeing of the Oil and Gas industry which is the main priority of the supposedly independent Oil and Gas Authority.

              • I think you will find the REALITY is quite different to your OPINION Peter!

                Hmm. Maybe not going to be too helpful reference insurance claims.

              • Peter, the planning application for drilling the second exploration well at West Newton received 121 objections.

                The planning application for extending the Withernwick onshore wind farm (approximately 2 miles away) received 282 objections.

                Can you guess which one was refused by the local council but was then overruled by the government?

                I will give you a clue, it wasn’t the exploration well.

              • It’s not only here in the UK where onshore wind is struggling to expand. Since 2016, permits for new onshore turbine installations in Germany have fallen by 70% due to regulatory conflicts with aviation authorities, court action from citizens protesting against construction near their homes and environmental organisations blocking installations due to species conservation.

        • Paul,
          Do you even know how many protest camps there were around the Preston New Road fracking site?
          What the Establishment are trying to do is prevent 24hr observation of the dubious activities of the fracking companies. The gate camp directly opposite the main entrance to the Cuadrilla fracking site at Preston New Road was manned on a well organised shift system and recorded and witnessed many instances of breaches of planning regulations both overnight and in broad daylight.
          It was in no way a ‘squatter camp’ as you so disrespectfully call it.

      • Eli-Goth,
        Once again your comments show a remarkable lack of awareness and acceptance of how other people live their lives.
        The people contributing to saving my endangered Community around the Cuadrilla fracking site did so 24 hours a day 7 days a week as part of a team effort.
        Plenty worked other than the conventional Monday to Friday 8am to 5om, others were retired persons, others were unable to work or find work.
        Others were trouble makers intentionally nfiltrated to undermine the genuine concerns of local and distant environmental activists. Many of these trouble makers have been identified as such and their actions will be featuring in Court Action during the next few weeks and months.

  5. Paul that is 100% true! Not a single protest, camp or ban! Strange that, I wonder how much the bigwigs are making off the subsidy? Not as much as the 9-5 career workers are making from the taxman on benefits and organised chaos!

  6. Maybe some want the days back when landowners could make £150k/turbine/year whether they were producing electricity required, or not?

    Yes, the landowners and the turbine suppliers.

    How will the turbines fit in within all the trees? There is work to show too many turbines will reduce the operating capacity of them all due to change in wind patterns. Well, many millions of new trees should dwarf that!

  7. Martin – they will cut the trees down before the turbines are installed as they have been doing for years:

    “14m trees have been cut down in Scotland to make way for wind farms”

    Perhaps they send them to Drax to earn more subsidies (for Drax this time?).

    Even though this “green” burning of forests has been shown to be totally none green….. and they get a subsidy of £2million / year….

    • I used to work with someone who did very well out of wind turbines.

      She found a chap who owned quite a number of sites-4 turbines per site times £150k net return per year per turbine- invested in some undies, and last I heard she had her man, three kids and a very comfortable life!

      True story.

      Now, that is a pretty good return on investment. He did quite well, also.

      (I still prefer them out to sea-turbines, that is. Can’t see why they can not be placed to integrate into a marine reserve, as drill rigs seem to create quite a nice marine habitat. The outline limits of the turbines within the sea would easily display the limits of the reserve and fishing controls could then be easily applied within that reserve, and then that would “seed” the surrounding waters.
      The problem would be that a University with a marine speciality would have to work with a turbine company, and we all know that would be an absolute disgrace! LOL.)

  8. It is interesting how those that support fracking like to refer to those opposed as NIMBYS but at the same time they were quick to complain when those protesting at fracking sites were not all locals! The reality is that those opposed to fracking oppose fracking anywhere and this has been demonstrated by support being given, knowledge shared, visits in person taking place at local, national and even international level. That is fact.

    • Yes, we know that, KatT. they drive from hundreds of miles just to be present!

      That is fact. An inconvenient fact, but still fact.

Add a comment

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s