Activists plan to mark the sentencing by demonstrating outside EDF headquarters in Victoria, London.

Why? It’s a criminal matter. EDF aren’t involved. Demonstrate outside the Old Bailey.

“No Dash for Gas activists will get sentenced and there is a possibility some of them will be jailed.”

As they should be if they committed a criminal offence.

Following an offer we received from the protestors’ lawyers to settle the civil case, EDF Energy has been working to agree a compromise agreement acceptable to both parties.

The protestors, who have all pleaded guilty in court to aggravated trespass, have agreed in principle to accept a permanent injunction which prevents them from entering multiple sites operated by EDF Energy. As a result of this, EDF Energy is dropping its claim for civil damages against them and believes that this is a fair and reasonable solution.

Truly, this is a new and mysterious definition of ‘won’.

What’s the point of this story? Is it that all ”direct action” activism is good and to be supported? Even that of Fathers 4 Justice who also do silly attention seeking stunts which cause disruption.
Do we support the principle of people who want to end the ban on fox hunting doing their own direct action that might get them arrested, and we just support them because we support the right to do these things?

OK, whatever. I’ll say I support their rights, but it doesn’t mean I’m particularly interested in their causes.

Interesting spin, Sunny.

Protestors indicate agreement to accept never again to enter an EDF Power Station, and this is a backdown by EDF.

I’d see that as a welcome drawing back from tactics verging on terrorism and a return to sanity by protestors, which is how I’d describe attempts to close down electricity supplies in the middle of winter.

Now lets hope all the others begin to recognise the definition of “peaceful protest” held by the rest of society.

The first five people to comment on this story appear to be accomplished whiners. C’mon guys, don’t be so negative. Why not tell us what you’re for instead of crying on behalf of a multi-national energy company that is raking in fortunes at yours and everybody else’s expense.
Or maybe i’m missing the point and that’s exactly why you’re here, kerching!

@Jayne B…so closing down a power station in mid-winter is a good move?

6 – why would I be crying on behalf of EDF? They won.

Jayne B, I’ll admit it, I can’t stand these kinds of eco-activists. They come across as smug and self righteous. And middle class and everything else.
I went to see the film ”Just Do It” about direction activists at the cinema. Only after I’d read about it on this website after it was promoted here.
It was cringworthy I thought. Or maybe I’m just getting old. But a quick look at a tralier of the film here on Youtube will show up everything that I think is quite dreadful about these people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zavTd31qxho

I hope that’s not too whiney – it’s just my opinion.
Btw, I’m FOR lots of things. Just not this stuff.

TimJ: the ‘win condition’ for EDF was hounding the protesters out of their homes, into bankruptcy and beyond pour encourager les autres. That was the point of suing for such an unrealistic sum in the first place; punitive damages. The fact that they don’t get make a public spectacle out of wrecking people’s lives for having the temerity to protest is a distinct loss for EDF.

The fact that protesters will be jailed for breaking the law to protest is what is supposed to happen. It’s not EDF winning. EDF winning would be none of us talking about EDF: it would be no-one even questioning whether EDF are in some way culpable of nefarious activities. Going to jail for what you believe in is how you get the exposure that civil disobedience is all about; it’s how you get people like us debating the issue you were willing to get jailed over. Getting sued into a smoking hole in the ground is something completely different.

Which is the point I was apparently failing to make in the last thread on this one. I didn’t see a problem with them being prosecuted for trespassing; that does not damage political dissent in the UK. EDF being granted free rein to indulge in a financial lynching would have been a failure of democratic values.

“That would be the first time climate campaigners have been jailed in Britain”

Poor Chris Huhne, forgotten already.

That was the point of suing for such an unrealistic sum in the first place; punitive damages.

The £5m sum was EDF’s estimate of the losses directly suffered as a result of NDG’s actions. It’s not punitive, it’s restitutionary. Exemplary damages are very rare in English law, and restricted to a handful of scenarios, none of which pertain here.

The fact that protesters will be jailed for breaking the law to protest is what is supposed to happen. It’s not EDF winning.

No, EDF winning is the respondents agreeing to an injunction that prevents them from entering EDF property (the terms of the settlement). The criminal proceedings are unrelated.

This is a pretty crap attempt at spin. EDF can never have seriously expected to get that sort of money out of these defendants or even cover their costs. The goal was evidently to put the wind up and they would appear to have succeeded.

Tim J
What was the earnings of the scum lawyers.

TimJ: respectfully, I disagree. You are not someone I’d normally consider in any way naive, so I can only assume you are deliberately choosing to miss the point.

It doesn’t matter what the legal definitions of of punitive and restitutionary are. I’m talking about what EDF were actually doing, as opposed to what legal terminology accurately describes the case. Suing dissenters for £5m is an attempt to punish: specifically, in this case, it’s an attempt to punish publicly, with the aim of discouraging or preventing future protest.

Lots of people don’t like EDF. A very short list of protesters from the last protest agreeing not to do it again gains EDF nothing if the next protesters are different people. Successfully suing for such a foolishly large sum of money would have guaranteed there were no more protests. No-one would dare. That would have been the win condition for EDF.

This seems to be a common tactic these days by the state and big corporations to try and intimidate and bully anyone who dares exercise their democratic right to protest!

There seems to be a trend here of using psychological tactics of bullying and intimidation to silence dissent. And this is quite deliberate as well. See this for example: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/10/shale-gas-industry-brings-psyops-and-spy-ops-poland

I’m quite sure this sort of thing is quite widespread.

Presumably this is so we can remain a ‘free country’ on paper, but curtailed in practice. Also, the state and big corporations seem to be in on it together. The state seems to have morphed into an entity which exclusively serves the interests of the big multinational corporations. There’s been a sort of silent coup taken place over the last few decades.

There’s a word for when the state and corporations merge into a single entity, now what is it?

@5. Matt W

Interesting spin, Sunny.

Protestors indicate agreement to accept never again to enter an EDF Power Station, and this is a backdown by EDF.

I’d see that as a welcome drawing back from tactics verging on terrorism and a return to sanity by protestors, which is how I’d describe attempts to close down electricity supplies in the middle of winter.

Now lets hope all the others begin to recognise the definition of “peaceful protest” held by the rest of society.

I’m sure the same sort of thing was said about Suffragettes a century ago!