Roof protest at Prescott's home (Greenpeace)

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 06:22am

Environmental activists have attempted to install a solar panel on the roof of John Prescott's home in protest at the government's record on energy.

Up to 20 Greenpeace campaigners climbed on to the roof of the deputy prime minister's home in Hull on Tuesday.

A spokesman said the panels were being left as a present, along with roof insulation and low-energy light bulbs.

Insp Mike Sansom said: "They are carrying out a non-violent protest and we are monitoring the situation."

One of the protesters on the turrets on either side of the house in Sutton, Laura Yates, said the group scaled the 25ft walls with ladders.

She said they were challenged by armed police, but officers did not stop them once they were told it was a peaceful protest.

Ms Yates said: "We made it very clear we were from Greenpeace and we were not going to do any damage.

"We just hope that we'll be able to give them some tips on improving the energy efficiency of their home."

Campaigners say the protest was aimed at Mr Prescott because of his responsibility for housing policy and was intended to highlight energy wasted by housing in Britain.

A banner which says 'Oi Two Jags. Hit Targets, Not Voters' has been displayed by the activists.

Supt Gavin Collinson from Humberside Police said the demonstrators "stormed" the gates and overwhelmed the armed officers on guard.

He said: "The police officers challenged them. They realised it was a peaceful protest, therefore withdrew that challenge and at that point they were overwhelmed by the numbers in involved in the protest.

"In actual fact, they managed to force their way past, not using violence, but obviously the sheer weight of numbers is what caused them to be able to get past."

He said there were no plans to bring the protesters down and hoped that now they had made their point, the incident would come to a close.

A Labour Party spokesman said: "John Prescott is one of the most accessible politicians in Britain.

"These protesters would have known he was on the road and his wife alone in the house.

"It is one thing to go for a politician, but to go for their wives is despicable."

The spokesman added "that John Prescott played a key role in delivering the Kyoto agreement".

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2005-04-26 06:34am

Too bad that didn't happen here in the US. You could've shot them for trespassing.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 06:36am

Fire Fly wrote:Too bad that didn't happen here in the US. You could've shot them for trespassing.

Prescott's more likely to get a cherry picker up there (I cannnot envisage him managing a ladder) and punch them out...which you must admit would be far more entertaining.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2005-04-26 06:55am

Hey, do you think I could start being anti-energy conservation and they'd come round and install roof installation and solar panels on our roof?

Interesting form of protest, but I fail to see why this is being allowed - it's a peaceful protest but on someone's private property, that does count as trespass and I'm fairly sure that if he or the rest of his family wanted to, they could have them removed and arrested for it.

And it does seem rather unreasonable to not do it whilst he's at home, must be a bit creepy for his wife to hear banging around. Obviously they fear the wrath of Prescott and had to wait till he wasn't there to stop them. And who can blame them?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2005-04-26 08:24am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
She said they were challenged by armed police, but officers did not stop them once they were told it was a peaceful protest.

I thought British cops didn't have guns

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-04-26 08:35am

armed with those sticks they use, obviously

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2005-04-26 10:24am

I'd climb up next to them and throw a bucket of the horribly toxic waste that was produced making that solar pannel into their face.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-04-26 10:34am

Nice to see Greenpeace still has no respect for anybody but themselves.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-26 10:46am

Chris OFarrell wrote:I'd climb up next to them and throw a bucket of the horribly toxic waste that was produced making that solar pannel into their face.

Being exposed to an open bucket of that stuff would probably be bad enough, never mind getting it on you.

Making solar panels has nasty toxic waste-products.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-04-26 10:55am

i'd love to see those idiots try the same thing here in the states. especially texas. i know i'd be beating some heads for trying to make any type of major changes to my home without my permission, regardless of what pretext it's under.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 11:57am

I see no one has mentioned the word "vandalism" yet, even though it is clearly the most appropriate charge.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:07pm

Darth_Zod wrote:i'd love to see those idiots try the same thing here in the states. especially texas. i know i'd be beating some heads for trying to make any type of major changes to my home without my permission, regardless of what pretext it's under.

They would be arrested and criminally charged, possibly even for terrorism, and if that didnt happen, they would be shot.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 01:45pm

Split

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-26 06:25pm

If I had a mansion and that happened to me, I'd have no problem taking potshots at them and calling the cops on their asses.

"Peaceful protest" my ass. That's trespassing and vandalism, plain and simple.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-04-26 08:06pm

Montcalm wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
She said they were challenged by armed police, but officers did not stop them once they were told it was a peaceful protest.
I thought British cops didn't have guns

Oh don't be stupid. Of course they have guns, or do you really think the cops use retractable batons on those that do use firearms illegally? Regular cops here can have GLOCK 20s; SO19 will use everything from those to MP5s to PSG1s.

And I'm amazed these cretins still pull this shit off. I hope the full extent of the law is thrown at them, despite my disliking of that idiot Prescott.

ggs wrote: Being exposed to an open bucket of that stuff would probably be bad enough, never mind getting it on you.

Making solar panels has nasty toxic waste-products.

There are people looking for alternatives from flexible more ecologically riendly plastics that are more efficient to make solar cells to man made photosynthetic materials. Today such devices are still a pipe dream, but hopefully solar will be far better in the future rather than the expensive, inefficient and hard to make brittle things today, to say nothing of their toxic chemical make-up.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-04-26 08:09pm

Chris OFarrell wrote: I'd climb up next to them and throw a bucket of the horribly toxic waste that was produced making that solar pannel into their face.

Hardly a fitting punishment for a minor act of nuisance.

Darth Wong wrote: I see no one has mentioned the word "vandalism" yet, even though it is clearly the most appropriate charge.

There's a pic available here; it seems the GP people aren't actually installing the thing, they're just lamely holding (or propping) it up atop a spectacularly vulgar fake turret at Chez Prescott. I guess the structure of the building is untouched, so no can do on a charge of vandalism.
In the end it appears they got "harrassment of a person in a dwelling", which seems not unreasonable.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: They would be arrested and criminally charged, possibly even for terrorism

Hey, that might be about to happen! According to the BBC (link above) Mr Prescott says that "the protesters had terrorised his wife" - sounds like a job for the SAS to me.

Castor Troy wrote: If I had a mansion and that happened to me, I'd have no problem taking potshots at them and calling the cops on their asses.

If you did that in Hull, it would be you the coppers would be more interested in. And anyway, isn't being shot a bit of an excessive punishment for a minor act of nuisance?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-04-26 08:17pm

The cops were 'overwhelmed' by 20 unarmed protesters? Sheesh, there's some hardcore cops ....

Really despicable behavior ... and yet another reason that big, territorially aggressive dogs are the perfect accessory for every nice home.

Fuck with politicians at their Parliament or Congress, don't fuck with them at their house ... because then I turn from relatively sympathetic to the protester to completely sympathetic to the homeowner and whatever force is required to keep jackasses on their side of the fence.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-26 08:19pm

The Third Man wrote:
Castor Troy wrote: If I had a mansion and that happened to me, I'd have no problem taking potshots at them and calling the cops on their asses.
If you did that in Hull, it would be you the coppers would be more interested in. And anyway, isn't being shot a bit of an excessive punishment for a minor act of nuisance?

True, which is a real big reason why I'm happy with where I live.

As for being shot for a "monor act of nuisance", I think you missed the part where they would be vandalising and trespassing into my house.

Oh wait, instead I should serve them lunch, right?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 08:29pm

Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-04-26 08:32pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...

More accurately, the U.S., where you're not required to believe that people who invade your home and frighten your family are doing it with the 'best intentions' ... instead, you are legally entitled to err on the side of caution and forcibly eject them.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 08:35pm

Chmee wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...
More accurately, the U.S., where you're not required to believe that people who invade your home and frighten your family are doing it with the 'best intentions' ... instead, you are legally entitled to err on the side of caution and forcibly eject them.

Translation back down to simple terms:

Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-04-26 08:36pm

Chmee wrote: The cops were 'overwhelmed' by 20 unarmed protesters? Sheesh, there's some hardcore cops ....

In fairness to the coppers, their actions resulted in a fairly optimal overall outcome all round - no-one got hurt/shot, no controversial scenes of violence required, protestors peacefully and quietly removed and charged. I think they showed good judgement in this case.

Castor Troy wrote: As for being shot for a "monor act of nuisance", I think you missed the part where they would be vandalising and trespassing into my house.

See my post above for link to the pic and charges - no vandalism was done. They did no more than climb up where they're not supposed to be. There's a little kid lives on my street, he's forever up to mischief, and one of his favourite pass-times is climbing up garden walls to peer at what's on the other side. I bollock him when I catch him at it. You would shoot him?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-04-26 08:40pm

The Third Man wrote:
Chmee wrote: The cops were 'overwhelmed' by 20 unarmed protesters? Sheesh, there's some hardcore cops ....
In fairness to the coppers, their actions resulted in a fairly optimal overall outcome all round - no-one got hurt/shot, no controversial scenes of violence required, protestors peacefully and quietly removed and charged. I think they showed good judgement in this case.

Can't argue with that, if they were too undermanned to keep them from invading the property, the proper course was to call in sufficient aid to execute the arrests.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-04-26 08:46pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Chmee wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...
More accurately, the U.S., where you're not required to believe that people who invade your home and frighten your family are doing it with the 'best intentions' ... instead, you are legally entitled to err on the side of caution and forcibly eject them.
Translation back down to simple terms:

Welcome to the US where petty vanalism carries the death penalty...

'Forcibly eject' ... not equal to 'death penalty' ..... although catapult accidents do happen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 08:49pm

Chmee wrote:'Forcibly eject' ... not equal to 'death penalty' ..... although catapult accidents do happen.

Funny shooting people is considered deadly force...pointing a gun at them is threatening with a deadly weapon....so, what exactly is the notion that you can shoot people on your property for no reason other than nuiscance except the death penalty for it?

Ah...yes...the death penalty requires a trial, evidence, courts, juries, lawyers and appeals and stuff...my mistake, let me rephrase:

Welcome to the US where petty vandalism incurs summary execution...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Roof protest at Prescott's home (Greenpeace)

Roof protest at Prescott's home (Greenpeace)

Re: Roof protest at Prescott's home (Greenpeace)

Re: Roof protest at Prescott's home (Greenpeace)