Destruction of democracy in the UK in silencing climate change campaigners

A shocking threat to rights of free speech in the UK has just occurred. This is not just about the right of free speech, it also about climate change in how governments deal with it. 

The UK is edging towards a fascist state as far as I'm concerned. This latest criminal court judgement supports my thinking.  Please read Hallam's enormous tweet which is at the end of this article. You get first hand reporting. The judge was arrogant and wrong. Very wrong.

I can't find the judge's reasoning. I think he referred to the campaigners as 'fanatics'. I also think he was very biased against them and it would not surprise me if he did not believe that climate change exists and drives an enormous SUV. Yes, I am pissed off with this judge. It is not just me.

The former lord chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said that he was 'uncomfortable' with the sentences although Sir Robert Buckland said they were justified.

This judge handed down a 5 year jail sentence to a peaceful protestor in the UK who campaigns for action against global warming by Michael Broad

--------------

A record five-year jail term has been handed out to Roger Hallam, 58, for coordinating the climate change protests under the Just Stop Oil banner which disrupted the M25 in London over four days in 2022. 

45 protesters climbed gantries on the motorway, forcing police to stop the traffic. Four others, campaigners in the Just Stop Oil organisation, were each jailed for four years. They were found guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance under a new draconian law which curbs free-speech and peaceful protest.

This is controversial legislation introduced by the previous government to get tough on disruptive tactics used by environmental protesters. They were charged under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

There is shock over this sentence which is a record for a person engaged in peaceful protest. Yes, I will capitalise that: PEACEFUL PROTEST.

What do the public think about the record jail sentences for Just Stop Oil activists?

Our nationally representative poll found 61% of people in Britain think the sentences were too harsh. Only 12% felt they were too lenient. Read more here: https://t.co/InHH5BAAjf https://t.co/CNkpeXtAEY pic.twitter.com/4fiIucxfQG

— Social Change Lab (@SocChangeLab) July 19, 2024

The previous Conservative government got their knickers in a twist over these Just Stop Oil protests because they were very disruptive. That made them effective. These campaigners felt that they had to be disruptive in order to make their statement clear to everybody. That's the nature of a peaceful protest. But the right wing government now ousted by Labour, decided to clampdown on them and at the same time clampdown on free speech. And also at the same time to ignore climate change.

It's utterly shocking to people like me. And to Chris Packham, the naturalist and broadcaster. He said that the sentence of five years handed down to Roger Hallam, was a threat to free speech and he has called for a meeting with Richard Hermer KC, the attorney general, "as rapidly as possible so that we could address this grotesque miscarriage of justice".

He also said that we need to be "clear, be very very clear this is not just about climate activism. The laws that have been drafted, the injustices that are being wrought, threaten all rights of free speech. We stand here today because our future security may be compromised by the reckless and irresponsible erosion of human rights, of our fundamental freedoms. I stand here because I believe this represents the direct theft of our freedom, the destruction of our democracy, the deliberate and calculated intimidation of our protesters, and that, unless we resist this, the very real danger is our species will destroy life on earth will stop"

He's of course referring to climate change which really concerns him as it should concern all of us. He is a conservationist. He was to protect wildlife which is increasingly under dire threat across the globe because of global warming.

The sentencing is particularly grotesque as this government has decided to release criminals after 40% of their sentence. The country is releasing genuine criminals early in order to make room in overcrowded prisons while at the same time clearly, over-punishing genuine people who are concerned about the future of humankind on this planet. It is BONKERS.

There have been calls to repeal the above-mentioned act. The sentence was also criticised by Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK's law and human rights adviser. He wants the act repealed. He said that "These lengthy jail sentences for people seeking climate justice should increase the alarm over the ongoing crackdown against peaceful protest in this country, which violates all our human rights. With our overcrowded prison system already described as a ticking timebomb by the new Lord Chancellor these jail terms are all the more indefensible."

The judge who handed down this grotesque sentence is Judge Christopher Hehir. Shame on him. He is not worthy to be a judge.

Update:

Hallam said this (and a lot more - see his tweet below):

The crime? 

Giving a talk on civil disobedience as an effective, evidence-based method for stopping the elite from putting enough carbon in the atmosphere to send us to extinction. I have given hundreds of similar speeches encouraging nonviolent action and have never been arrested for it. This time I was an advisor to the M25 motorway disruption, recommending the action to go ahead to wake up the British public to societal collapse.

His tweet:

I've just been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The longest ever for nonviolent action.

The 'crime'?

Giving a talk on civil disobedience as an effective, evidence-based method for stopping the elite from putting enough carbon in the atmosphere to send us to extinction.

I have… pic.twitter.com/U2dHaDQkGf

— Roger Hallam (@RogerHallamCS21) July 18, 2024

From Just Stop Oil:

Professor McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London, said:

“The trial and verdict were a farce. They mark a low point in British justice and they were an assault on free speech. The judge’s characterisation of climate breakdown as a matter of opinion and belief is completely nonsensical and demonstrates extraordinary ignorance. Similarly to suggest that the climate emergency is irrelevant in relation to whether the defendants had a reasonable case for action is crass stupidity.” 

Sir David King, the government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, said:

“This is so disgraceful. We are all hoping that the change in UK Govt will also change the situation in our courts.”

As mentioned, this legislation is controversial. It provides for stiffer sentences for protesters who block roads. It was backed by the current Prime Minister. But it has been condemned by the United Nations human rights Commissioner as "deeply troubling" and "disproportionate".

In sentencing, Judge Christopher Hehir, told the activists: 

"The plain fact is that each of you some time ago has crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change."

Comment: it appears to me that he is introducing his personal opinion about these campaigners. It seems to me to be biased to describe the most fanatics.

Hallam described the criminal court that he attended as a "kangaroo court".

The trial was criticised by the UN's Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michel Forst, who described the threat of a long sentence against Daniel Shaw [one of the defendants sentenced to 4 years] as potentially unlawful. Speaking on the eve of the first day of the trial, he warned: "The imposition of such a sanction is not only appalling but may also violate the United Kingdom's obligations under international law."

The danger is that the harsh sentences will fire up the campaigners to do more. It will be a catalyst for more extreme action against climate change inertia.

The next day

The next day, in The Times, there's a long list of celebrities and well-known people who have written about the injustice of these prison sentences. In fact, more than 1100 lawyers, academics, artists and celebrities have called for an urgent meeting with the attorney general to address the injustice of the sentences given to 5 environmental activists according to a report by the Times.

It is notable that the jail terms exceed those given to Just Stop Oil activists who scaled the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge Dartford Crossing in October 2022. It is also longer than many far more serious crimes such as a police officer attempting rape as I understand it. I think you'll find that rapist in the UK get prison terms of around five years sometimes.

The Prime Minister has faced calls to intervene in this case. In addition, the UN Human Rights Commissioner described the sentences as deeply troubling and disproportionate.

The millionaire Labour donor, Dale Vince, has called for a meeting with the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC.

In their letter of 1100 signatories, they echoed the call by Dale Vince and Chris Packham. Those who signed it include Lord Williams of Oystermouth, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC, one of the country's most distinguished human rights lawyers and the artist Dame Tracey Emin. Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the government also signed the letter. There are many others including Toby Jones, the star of Mr Bates vs The Post Office and Danny Boyle, the director of the film Trainspotting.

The general consensus is that "With prisons a breaking point how can these sentences be seen as anything other than insanity".

Further update The Times Wednesday, August 14, 2024: the protesters who were jailed for four years and Hallam the leader, who was jailed for five years are appealing against their record sentences claiming that the terms breached international law and are longer than those handed to rioters. It has transpired that the judge refused the opportunity of the protesters to explain their motivations for taking such action. And they were barred from producing evidence of the immediate threat posed by climate change. That would seem to be a serious omission and a bias by the judge.

A petition has been started in America by an American-based campaign group which has condemned the "gagging and jailing of peaceful climate protesters in UK courts." The petition argues that the laws are repressive and they have called on PM Starmer to repeal them. It has garnered 20,000 signatures to date.

The activists are arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that the judge "appears to have punished the defendants for disobeying his orders not to explain their motivations for taking such actions."

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Metropolitan Police has axed its Wildlife Crime Unit

The Metropolitan Police, the largest police force in the UK which provides law enforcement around London and Greater London, has axed its Wildlife Crime Unit, a fortnight ago. There is now a single Metropolitan police officer with specialism in wildlife crime employed by the force. Essentially, the Metropolitan Police force have, apparently, abandoned the protection and conservation of wildlife. This is a very bad backward step for animal advocates considering the increase in wildlife crime globally.

The Times newspaper states that the disbanded unit played an important role in tackling the smuggling of animal parts and plants through Heathrow Airport. They had a good history of seizing live animals and body parts at the airport as part of Operation Thunder.

But the Metropolitan Police decided to abolish the unit and its two detectives were redeployed to local policing. Since then one of the detectives has resigned. This leaves one concerned with wildlife protection and enforcement.

The point is that crimes relating to the international trade in wildlife body parts and living animals is expanding. It is a multi-billion dollar trade annually.

The Metropolitan Police's deployment of resources in protecting wildlife is frankly abysmal. We are told that the unit's expertise was domestic and international in, for example, helping to enforce the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). 

This is an international treaty which is persistently abused by the way because the treaty members who have entered into an agreement with other countries simply fail to enforce the treaty adequately which I would argue is reinforced by the Met police decision to abolish their specialist unit.

It admitted that "the main consequence of its closure was that protection for wildlife crimes would be less likely." The quote comes from The Times.

John Scanlon, chairman of the Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime and the former secretary-general of CITES, said in a letter to Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner: 

"Dismantling the Met Wildlife Crime Unit is not only bad for London, and the United Kingdom, but it will impact source countries, and send the wrong message to those who are inclined to engage in wildlife crime."

The unit still exists but has only an advisory role. Unlike the abolished unit it is unable to prosecute directly, which means that the police officers from the disbanded unit will now focus on tackling local crime.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cat flea treatment insecticides are poisoning aquatic life in rivers

It may surprise people to know that spot-on cat flea treatments used in the home in the ordinary way can poison aquatic life in rivers and watercourses miles away. It's the insecticides used in these treatments such as fipronil and imidacloprid which do the damage. 

This is what happens: you apply the treatment to your cat at the back of the neck and some of the treatment gets on your hands so you wash your hands afterwards. The water goes down into the drainage system and then to rivers. In fact we are advised to wash our hands afterwards as the chemicals are dangerous to us! 🤢

Or after you apply the treatment your cat goes on to their bedding and some of the chemical is deposited on the bedding. You wash the bedding in due course and the chemical is then washed into the wastewater system and thence into watercourses miles away.

The research was carried out by a PhD student and veterinary surgeon at the University of Sussex in the UK, Rosemary Perkins. She says the following:

This research confirms that fipronil and imidacloprid used in spot-on flea products are important surface water pollutants. With around 22 million cats and dogs in the UK, we urgently need to rethink how these products are regulated and used.

Of the methods mentioned above, the most common is washing your hands. The research by Perkins builds on earlier research which found that the insecticide fipronil was found in 98% of freshwater samples. The other insecticide, imidacloprid was found in 66% of freshwater samples. Both are in concentrations at which they can harm aquatic animals.

The scientists are asking for a review of regulations concerning these cat flea treatments. Professor David Goulson also of Sussex University, who supervised the research said that these two chemicals are extremely potent neurotoxic insecticides. 

He added that it is deeply concerning they are routinely found on the hands of dog and cat owners and that people should be concerned and will be concerned that they pollute rivers and kill aquatic life.

He implies a third way the chemicals get into watercourses. After applying the treatment, the dog owner or cat owner handles their pet and some of the chemical is still in the fur and that gets onto their hands.

I've mention this many times but these insecticides are very toxic to cats as well as people.

The solution?

There appears to be two obvious solutions. The first is not the use the spot-on treatments (I don't) and find other ways, holistic ways, to keep your home and your cat flea-free. 

It can be done. For example it means no carpets or if you have a carpet to vacuum your carpet regularly as this is an effective way to get rid of larvae and pupae and adult fees in the carpet. 

Ideally it should be a beater type vacuum cleaner which disturbs the particles and flea larvae at the base of the carpet.

Another way is to use surgical gloves would you can buy very cheaply on Amazon when you apply this treatment. Use the gloves repeatedly and then when they are finally worn out placed them in the rubbish in the usual way. That would be a very effective way of preventing the insecticides getting into the water system.

The bottom line is to focus on keeping your home totally flea free which means applying a lot of vigilance such as flea combing your cat once or twice a day to keep tabs on what is going on. 

Minimise the number of cats that you keep in your home. That won't be that popular with some people but the more cats you have the more chance of fleas jumping from one cat to the other and the more treatments you use.

I just want people to think about this problem and try and find their own way to remove it because we don't want to put wildlife under further pressure. Wildlife across the globe is already under immense pressure from human activity in a myriad of ways.

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

This 11-year girl's letter about wildlife is an inspiration

Her letter says it all. This 11-year girl, Rose, is the opposite to those indoctrinated teenage sport hunters we see on social media in front of the animal they shot with their dad who taught them how to be cruel to animals. She loves wildlife. She wrote to the organisers of the British TV program called Springwatch.

This 11-year girl's letter about wildlife is an inspiration. Image: Twitter.

Mass Trap Neuter Release Planned For Kauai, Hawaii

Kauai, Hawaii is a small island about 45 kms in diameter. I guess they have lots of seabirds. It is the sort of place where seabirds are the primary wildlife and they are potential prey for feral cats. You'd have thought with that in mind the authorities would have taken effective proactive steps years ago to ensure that cat owners behaved in a responsible way towards their duty in ensuring that their cats did not breed and did not wander to the point where they became feral.

But no, so the island has the classic "feral cat problem". Fortunately the authorities have set up an 11 member task force to use humane methods to reduce and control the feral cat population. Although the methods will not be totally humane - there is likely to be some killing but at present we don't know how much.

The target is no feral or stray cats on the island by 2025. How long does it take for trap-neuter-return to take full effect and reduce the feral cat population to zero? They have 11 years. I'd thought that was not enough time. In fact, I am pretty sure it is not enough time. It assumes a short lifespan for each feral cat but some may live longer than planned and the target requires completely successful (100% of cats neutered) TNR program across the island. This is probably unattainable and the TNR may take years putting the target back. It may have been wiser to set a more relaxed target so that success was more likely.

The plan is to TNR until 2020 combined with rigorous record keeping to monitor the progress. The aim is to achieve 90% feral cats TNR'ed by 2020.

It seems that they plan to TNR adult cats and try and adopt out kittens. There is certainly an admission that there will be some killing occurring in conjunction with the TNR.

Phase II will place strict requirements on the keeping of cat colonies. Where there are groups of cats they will have to be on private, fenced property and registered, certified etc.. I presume this refers to multicat households of those people who wish to care for feral cats. Most feral cat carers won't have the means to comply in my opinion.

At least the task for director has the correct starting point and attitude:

"It has to be done humanely, but we can't just leave this problem to sort itself out."

Source story.

Feral Cats Attacking Endangered Seabirds In Hawaii

The video shows endangered seabird burrows in the rugged rainforests of the mountains of Kauai in Hawaii where ferals cat attack the birds and feed on them.

Scientists state that feral cats are killing the endangered seabirds in large numbers. I would like to know where they get their statistics from because a video such as this one does not confirm that large numbers of seabirds are being killed by feral cats.

In the video you will see the cats pulling a Newell's Shearwater and a Hawaiian Petrel out of their borrowers and then killing them.

Dr Andre Raine, a coordinator of an endangered seabird recovery project, says that this is yet more evidence of the impact that feral cats have upon the conservation of these birds.

The population of these endangered birds is declining.  The reason for the researchers to find out why.

“The cameras are showing that cats are regularly visiting seabird borrows in all of our monitored colonies." says Dr Raine.

Dr Raine also states that one cat visited nine burrows in a single day last year. He goes on to state that a Hawaiian Petrel chick was killed in the process.  I wish to remain unbiased but that makes one bird and hints at the possibility that the feral cats are less destructive than as implied. Feral cats don't decimate bird populations.

There have been examples of feral cats killing island birds but often the research is flawed. Rats kill birds too for instance (How feral cats affect wildlife - overview)

Clearly the authorities in Hawaii are concerned about feral cat populations and no doubt they will be taking steps in the future to reduce the size of the population and I hope when that time comes they use the humane method, TNR. They are working with the Humane Society of the United States to work out the best way to reduce the impact on indigenous wildlife.

The impact of feral cats on wildlife is frequently over-estimated and always based on estimates.
Source

Stop Estimating Wildlife Killed by Cats!

We have another shocking report that has been hyped up in the press today (31st Jan 2012).  This time Nature Communications have published estimates animal kills by domestic and feral cats in the USA over a year. The figures come from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Photo by Kai Hendry

They say that 3.7 billion birds and 20.7 billion small mammals are killed yearly by cats. However, they constantly refer to "estimates"or "thoughts"...

• "far exceeds all prior estimates..."
• "The researchers estimated..."
• "There are thought to be ....."

We don't know how many feral cats there are the in the USA and by far the biggest "estimated" impact on wildlife comes from feral cats.

How can scientists produce accurate figures if they really don't have any idea about the number of feral cats in the USA? No one has ever done a proper count of feral cat numbers. And what about the benefits of feral cats?

The researchers say that cats kill "mice, voles, rabbits and shrews". They also kill rats. How many rats are killed by feral cats in one year in the USA? No one has addressed that point.

The scientific community and the online newspaper work together in a most disagreeable way to distort the image of the cat and create adverse publicity that encourages the nastier sort of person to up the rate at which they shoot feral cats. It also encourages a devaluing of the domestic cat in the eyes of non-cat owners and irresponsible cat owners.

It really is time that scientists stopped estimating things as important as cat kill rates. It is careless science. The people who write up these reports cannot place any value on the cat. If they did they would not be so careless.

They say, "There are thought to be 30-80million such cats living wild in the US...." One figure is less than half the other! Neither could be anywhere near correct. This is not science. It is journalist nonsense.

Is Wildlife Services Doing Its Job Properly?

I am writing about the USA in this post. I say that because "wildlife services" is a generic term. There is a petition on the causes.com website that tells us that Wildlife Services are killing too many animals unnecessarily in discharging their duties.  It has almost reached its goal of 10,000 signatures. The petition's author says that 50,000 non-threatening animals of various species have been killed over 10 years. She questions the need to kill so many animals, some of them protected species, and believes that Wildlife Services have gone beyond their remit in favoring killing as a means of wildlife management over non-lethal methods.

Also mistakes have been made and covered up, she says. The petition's author does not imply that there is something underhand going on. Remember, though, that government agencies are vulnerable to lobbying from big business. Wildlife gets in the way of business. The recent massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was partly a result of backhanders going to regulatory authorities who relaxed regulations. Most people don't realize the scale of lobbying and bribing by big business. It is all behind closed doors and largely unreported in the press. I make the suggestion that the demise of the Florida Panther is due to a conspiracy.

The petition is worrying to people who care about wildlife and who are sensitive to the abuse of wildlife. This is because Wildlife Services are meant to provide "Federal leadership and skill to resolve wildlife interactions that threaten public health". If the leadership is suspect or making poor judgements it could affect the general public and other government bodies in a negative way with respect to wildlife conservation.

It may be that its history holds it back. Until 1997, Wildlife Services was called Animal Damage Control (ADC). "Animal control" implies just that: killing of wild animals in effect. Also this government body was formed in 1895 as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Back in the 19th century attitudes towards wildlife were entirely different. It was much more brutal and hunting was unregulated. Does that legacy colour the attitudes of the management at Wildlife Services (WS) today?

What do they say is their mission? Here it is:

WS' vision is to improve the coexistence of people and wildlife.

This implies finding a balance between wildlife and human life.  They are there to resolve conflict issues between people and wild animals. The trouble with this aim is this: when push to comes to shove and you have no good ideas left to resolve the conflict you can always eliminate the more vulnerable party: the wildlife. That will obviously resolve conflict issues, won't it? My guess is that this is at the root of the problem. I believe the petition's author that there is unnecessary killing. And I also believe that there is an attitude problem at WS.

WS acts under two primary statutory authorities: The Act of March 2, 1931 as amended, and The Act of December 22, 1987.

Under The Act of March 2, 1931, The Secretary of Agriculture dictates how WS carry out their duties. The current incumbent is Thomas James "Tom" Vilsack. He is a democrat. He was raised under the influence of the Roman Catholic faith. For me that does not bode well in respect of a balanced attitude towards wildlife.