Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Corals not as threatened as we thought | Main | High tide for the shale gas scare? »

Quote of the day, hypocritical lowlife edition

You are self employed and I was told that your work takes you to the USA. I can not resist surmising that you may get there using air travel.

District Judge Wright draws attention to the almost unbelievable hypocrisy of Robert Basto, one of the Heathrow 13.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (79)

Basto campaigns on behalf of Croydon Friends of the Earth.

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:13 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

So, since you are jolly nice folk really with passionately held cranky views, take a slap on the wrist... any others like you out there go right ahead, cause whatever distress, disruption and cost to your fellow citizens because the 'law' really won't do much about it.

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn B

Going airside without any authority to do so warrants much more than they got. So, some of them will be back again I expect..not necessarily Heathrow. TV Licence and you likely hit clink!

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEx-expat Colin

We're not going to lock people up because . . . what? Dangers to society are to be left in society because it would be too inconvenient for them and their families to be locked up.

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterGamecock

" 4. Ella Gilbert... You have has a masters degree in climate change"

What does that mean?


Feb 26, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

I wonder whether US Immigration will welcome him with Non Violent Direct Action?

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Judge Wright is awake to the reality that false pride and blind arrogance prevented world leaders and their puppet scientists from seeing.

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterOliver K. Manuel

Yes Andrew, I wondered what a degree in climate change was all about. AFAIK, there at least 80 branches of science that go into making up "climate change". Assuming there is a measure of overlap for each degree course, (although unlikely for all subjects by a long chalk), & each degree course is a four year course, let's say that leaves only 6 months of study in each subject. That means that one would have to spend 40 years studying 80 different subjects, making one in their early 60s by the time they'd qualified! Wow, they've managed to shrink that all down into one course! Impressive! I won't say any more just in case I upset the delicate sensibilities of Mr Shellenberger!

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

Tell me, Your Grace - are you saying that there's EARTH in Croydon to be FRIENDS with..?

My experience is that its Warehouse Central....

Feb 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Alan the Brit,

Quite so. Does having a degree in climate change mean that if the climate stays the same you have no idea what to do? lol


Feb 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

Perhaps the airlines should ban Basto and the rest of them for life.

Let's see how that affects their ability to jaunt around the world

Feb 26, 2016 at 3:12 PM | Registered Commentermangochutney

A good point Andrew!

That is also a good point, mangochutney! If one assaults a licencee in a pub, the association of landlords (can't remember its name) can ban the offender from ALL pubs by right, permanently!

Feb 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

The first paragraphs are interesting mini-bios on these people. From what I can gather, none of them actually work for a living and are probably professional protesters.

I can't help surmising that these people are puppets and the various groups/charities they represent are the strings. Rich people flying around in their private jets must be having a blast.

I'd find all of this amusing if it weren't for the fact that this is affecting me. I've found more and more cases of people getting paid to not actually do or produce anything. Elites are gaming the system again.

Feb 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeC

I am struck by the fact that most of these individuals have supplied reasons why they should not get custodial sentences. Did it not strike them in advance that these were good reasons why they should not have committed offences that were subject to custodial sentences?

Feb 26, 2016 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

"and entering a security restricted area of an aerodrome without permission contrary to section 21C(1)(a) of the
Aviation Security Act 1982 ."

Which only involves a fine. It seems to me that in this day and age, it's quite a serious matter and should attract more than a fine (which because of the other sentencing, they didn't get).

It's not unresonable that between them they should pay at least a pound for every passenger disrupted. £92,000 bill would have been about right.

Feb 26, 2016 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Ella Gilbert: "....we’re not saying that everybody who wants to fly is a bad person ... it's those who fly frequently and unnecessarily who are driving the need for expansion...."

What is unnecessary? A climate scientist flying to a climate change conference in Bali? A banker flying to New York on business? Emma Thompson flying to LA for the 14th Annual AFI awards held at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills? A hedge fund manager flying to Switzerland for a client review? A Friends of the Earth campaigner flying to the US for any reason whatsoever?

I imagine that according to Ella, the answers would be no, yes, no, yes and no respectively.

And therein lies the problem. For some of these convicted criminals, it's not just about carbon dioxide emissions caused by flying. It's also about who gets to fly and why. It's also about the imposition of left-leaning greenie political priorities by all means necessary including repeated criminal acts. It's about people like Ella getting to decide who flies and who doesn't.

Bish, I advise you to fulfill any long-distance travel plans as soon as practical. Your name will be near the top of the new regime's no-fly list.

Feb 26, 2016 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterigsy

The airport authority should now sue them and the organisations they represent for the losses incurred. Perhaps Putin could offer some advice.

Feb 26, 2016 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Copy paste enjoy

Feb 26, 2016 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

'You are self employed and I was told that your work takes you to the USA. I can not resist surmising that you may get there using air travel.'

With a suspended sentence and conviction his USA trips may be curtailed, he better not moan about the result of his own actions.

Feb 26, 2016 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

It is rather interesting that passengers delayed beyond certain threshold times may be eligible for compensation from the airline (certain types of delay are exempt from this). I think it would be entirely reasonable for airlines paying compensation to enter civil suits against individuals or their organisations for the cost of paying compensation, or for passengers thus delayed but denied compensation because of the nature of the event, to also seek compensation through a civil action. I must add though that despite the total clarity of the EU regulations that govern the payment of compensation, you have to fight to get it, and the CAA are about as useful as a chocolate teapot (for making British style hot tea – the iced variety works okay in chocolate teapots!)

I would have thought that you could find a big enough group of wealthy individuals from 92,000 to underwrite a lawsuit. You could probably bankrupt individuals, which might be a bigger penalty than a suspended sentence, although the suspended sentence that I would prefer in a case like this involves a rope!

Feb 26, 2016 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterIzzit Justice

What a bunch of losers.

Prison is too good for these middle-class wasters.
They should be engaged in environmentally useful work- such as the manual dredging of rivers to help prevent future floods and the like.

That is what they claim to be worried about.

Feb 26, 2016 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

@mangochutney, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Perhaps the airlines should ban Basto and the rest of them for life.

Let's see how that affects their ability to jaunt around the world

An excellent idea. You should email Willie Walsh with your suggestion.

I would extend the Global No Fly list to include all members and employees of: Greenpeace, FoE, WWF, Green Parties, members of all no airport expansion groups. I'm sure there are more, but banning these would be a good start.

Feb 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

Alan the Brit & Bad Andrew

MCC degree (Masters Degree in Life, the Universe and Everything)
for example:

"the Master of Climate Change (MCC) program aims to provide a unique educational experience to students interested in the various emerging career paths in climate change science and policy and management. The program is a specialized, course-based (non-thesis) program that will be completed over a period of three terms (12 months) of full-time studies at the main University of Waterloo campus."</>

The MCC degree sits with Department of Geography and Environmental Management (Waterloo).
Arguably, it would find a truer home in political 'science' or sociology. The Dept of Geography and Env Mngmt (Waterloo) have taken an expeditious political decision, doubtless based on funding considerations. In time, they may come to bite the hand that feeds them.

Feb 26, 2016 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterManfred

My apologies. Italics end at end of U.Waterloo MCC quotation, ...'U.Waterloo campus'.

Feb 26, 2016 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterManfred

I have been referred to the case of Jones and others [2006] UKHL 16 in which Lord Hoffman made the following observation “ civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. is the mark of a civilized community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind. But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the law breakers on one side and the law enforcers on the other. The protestors behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law. The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protestors into account.”

I am afraid, given the wholly foreseeable disruption that your actions caused, you overlooked your part in the bargain.

Curious that the man scold them for not keeping their part of the bargain but feel the need to keep his part of the bargain. He keeps it many much.

Feb 26, 2016 at 9:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand

"students interested in the various emerging career paths in climate change science and policy and management."

Thanks, Manfred.

Silly me for thinking it might have something to do with some studying of an actual climate somewhere.

I won't be so dumb next time. ;)


Feb 26, 2016 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

" Robert Basto - [...] You have been a longstanding campaigner on environmental issues and your views are
described in the PSR as rigid.
You are self employed and I was told that your work takes you to the USA. I can not resist surmising that you may get there using air travel. "

Views are rigid when applied to others, but flexible for himself?

Feb 26, 2016 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterclimatebeagle

Alan the Brit: "just in case I upset the delicate sensibilities of Mr Shellenberger"

"sticks and stones"

No! mate, honestly just go right ahead, free speech, its value - is priceless. I value your opinions, nuff said.

Feb 26, 2016 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Pity they were not incarcerated. Their actions certainly warranted incarceration.

Feb 26, 2016 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Poirier

Are you a Trump supporter, Jamspid?

Feb 27, 2016 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

Yes , these young people are criminals and deserve to be punished , but whilst i understand the ridicule of these folks expressed in comments here , have you ever stopped to consider that they are also victims and some sort of rehabilitation should be included as part of their sentences ?

Feb 27, 2016 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoubtingdave

" It does not mean that criminal offences will go unpunished or
that the courts should ignore the impact of your activities on others. "

… And the judge then proceeds to completely ignore the impact of their activities and ensure that other future criminal offences will go unpunished. Bravo!

To be fair the judge makes a very good and compelling list of the impact of their activities. The problem is he then disregards those impact completely by not punishing the defendants. And makes the matter much, much worse by pointing out that they all have 'extremely good, kind characters'.

Sickening. But, progress of a kind I suppose. Once upon a time these people wouldn't have been even threatened with imprisonment.

Feb 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

"he then disregards"

Predictable - he hasn't got over being called "Deborah"

Feb 27, 2016 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterVictoria Sponge

When a judge gives a stern lecture about the serious offense but then gives a slap on the wrist one can bet on having witnessed a bit of theatre.

Feb 27, 2016 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

The Met website gives full details of the muppets - even pic's !!

Feb 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDougUK

Reading the Judge's remarks, it seems to me that the right balance has been struck. The penalty is a serious one - imprisonment, which the judge applied, but he carefully avoided the other extreme of making martyrs.

he noted that whatever he did he was not going to change their views. A 6-week imprisonment would keep the public safe from them for 3 weeks, while a suspension will, with any luck, keep them away from direct action for a year...

In retrospect, I think the judge has been quite clever...

Feb 27, 2016 at 1:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

DG, they might need to be more careful than that if the judge is anything like this one:

Daniel and Samuel Sledden mocked Judge Beverley Lunt on Facebook after admitting drug dealing charges.
Daniel, 27, posted within 90 minutes of leaving Burnley Crown Court, while Samuel, 22, made offensive remarks 40 minutes after he left the dock.
Judge Lunt said the pair had not "learned any responsibility".
The judge said: "The question I have to ask myself is this, 'if I had known their real feelings at being in court would I have accepted their remorse and contrition, and suspended the sentence?'. And the answer is of course not.

"Each of the posts indicate they have not changed at all. They have not taken on board anything or learned any responsibility."

Feb 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

London Green Party mayoral candidate sings the praises of Plane Crazy crew.

What was that about hypocritical lowlife?

Feb 27, 2016 at 3:49 PM | Registered Commentertomo


....DG, they might need to be more careful than that if the judge is anything like this one:..

Exactly. Suspending in this case is the clever option. It means that they can be kept an eye on, and will need to stay away from 'direct action' for a year. In terms of protecting the public the judge has opted for the best choice.

She pointed out that she was not inclined to come down heavily on protesting as such, since it was understood that people who firmly believe in a cause should be allowed to make their point (and suffer the penalty) . What they should not be allowed to do is cause major and unacceptable disruption, and her penalty is intended to mitigate that danger for a fair time. Which makes sense to me...

Feb 27, 2016 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

When it comes to green hypocrisy it appears that this guy is a rank amateur.

Feb 27, 2016 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterStonyground

On BBC 4 tonight there was an hour long programme full of eco twaddle on the era of the Anthropocene.

I was not sure whether it was meant to be science fiction, as opposed to being scientific. A very one sided picture was painted with 'facts' of dubious veracity.

You would have thought that a geologist would have a better perspective and handle, but then again Iain Steward is well known as being a warmist advocate.

Feb 27, 2016 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

The structure of society -the wage or indeed small equity profit seeking slave orbits the airport.

The physical waste and spiritual strife is tremendous.

Feb 27, 2016 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

Oh no, heaven help us. The Dork has landed.
A big prize to the first person who can understand what he is waffling about this time.

Feb 27, 2016 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Smith

David Smith, 11:46:

I wouldn't waste too much time speculating. His other recent comment on the Brexit thread suggests his absence for the past week, has been due to him catching up the works of JRR Tolkein - though I suspect this will be through the cinematic versions, rather than the written originals, given his lack of comprehension.

Feb 28, 2016 at 12:51 AM | Registered CommenterSalopian

richard verney
I chose not tp watch when I saw who it was, perhaps a good decision.It was presented by I|an Stewart a Scottish education wasted in my opinion. Many a dominie is spinning in his grave still.

Feb 28, 2016 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

But surely the Greens are correct. It is not necessary for 100% of people to turn their backs on air travel. All that is necessary is that other people stop using planes. The hoi polloi need to do what they are told.

Feb 28, 2016 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Roy, even if all Greens did turn away from Air Travel, it would not make much difference to the increased demand for Air Travel. Remote tropical Islands would feel the pinch in visitor numbers, but most people claiming to be Green, value travel far too much, and simply want to impose their self righteousness on other people.

I can fully appreciate why many people don't want Heathrow to expand, and the Green Blob are trying to ensnare them into supporting their hypocritical philosophy.

Feb 28, 2016 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"You would have thought that a geologist would have a better perspective and handle, but then again Iain Steward is well known as being a warmist advocate."

He possesses a very unphotogenic face for a presenter.
His mouth naturally adopts a sneer and together with his abandonment of science I cannot watch him for long.

Feb 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

[Snip - O/T]

Feb 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

[Snip O/T]
If you feel obliged to talk about Latvia please open a discussion.

Feb 28, 2016 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>