Apart from the Guildford One, there is another blogger who doesn't seem to like me very much. - Richard North of the EU Referendum blog. While I much admire the blog he and my friend Helen Szamuely write, he seems to labour under the illusion that I should be writing comment pieces on every conceivable subject - especially the ones he thinks are important, rather than the ones I want to write about.
His latest tirade concerns the fact I haven't said anything about THIS story from the Independent, which has the banner headline, CLEARED: JURY DECIDES THAT THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING JUSTIFIES BREAKING THE LAW.
He really has picked on the wrong person. If he actually read this blog properly he would know that I have spoken out time again again against the climate change religion. Had I seen the story, I may well have got my dander up and written about it. But the fact of the matter was that I watching England smash Croatia and then had an early night. Shallow, I know. And today I have been writing my Telegraph column and doing my day job. So, sorry to disappoint Richard, but apart from writing this blog, I do have a life, you know. Unlike some.
Having said all that, the jury decision was a complete disgrace. Even more of a disgrace was the decision of Zak Goldsmith - a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate - to speak for the defence. There was a time when Conservative candidates defended law and order rather than intervene on behalf of a law breaking rabble.
Happy now, Richard?
UPDATE: OMG, what have I started. Look at the comments and you will see that there are comments from not only Richard North, but Richard D North. RDN's explanation as to who he is is a gem.
45 comments:
What the hell's it got to do with this Richard (in it's broadest sense) North? He's got his own 'blog' hasn't he? Why is he telling people what to put on theirs? What a moron!
North should simply piss off and mind his own business.
Good Grief! Next we'll be getting the Government and the EU trying to tell us what can and cannot be published on blogs.
Oh, er...
Is this post's headline a deliberate double entendre?
North must be a driven man. I protested way back at his attitude to you, and got a sharp response. Have not read him since.
Alan Douglas
Sir, you should perhaps avoid carrying adverts for Lib Dem fringe events discussing the rising risk of flooding due to global warming directly adjacent to your comments about your dislike of the 'global warming religion'. I'm afraid it makes you look a little inconsistent.
Sorry, but you shouldn't even try to satisfy Richard North. Unless you think most things in this world happen due to conspiracy theories.
Too harsh Iain. Zac is merely trying to smash the coal industry. He is a true Conservative.
Quite agree with you on this one, though not on climate change. And surely the issue at stake in the case was whether their acts constituted a breach of the law; the jury found that they did not.
Worth appealing against I'd have thought - if only for the satisfaction of taking up the time of the assorted beardy weirdos who were on trial.
I read EU Referendum faithfully - North's research is extremely important. But I do find his constant anger at those who are at least nominally on his side very wearing, and rather counter productive. Constant snarling at your 'friends' will turn them against you, even if you're right. He had a really vicious pop at Hannon a few months ago that I thought was totally unjustified.
Same with some of the Libertarians: they could be far more influential on the Tory party if they took a softly softly approach. After all, there are more than enough enemies on the other side to get riled about at present.
We tend to forget you have to earn a living, Iain! Take it as a compliment that we want your views on matters of the day.
And I agree, that jury decision was quite insane - regardless of the cause, there are ways of registering a protest that do not encourage vandalism.
Only two who dislike you Iain? Normally you'd inflate that figure & claim 2,000,000!
Iain, you should know that no-one ever satisfies Richard North!
Having said that, Zak Goldsmith is an advisor to David Cameron and must have had approval to speak for the defence here. Frankly that makes me very loath to lend David Cameron my vote next election.
I do love it when you start 'harrumphing'!
This is an excellent result for their brilliant defence legal team - Michael Wolkind QC, barrister Quincy Whitaker, and Mike Schwarz and Catherine Jackson of Bindmans Solicitors. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal. So the evidence for the defence centred around the enormous damage burning coal does to ecosystems, people and property around the planet - and the UK government's abject failure to take any meaningful action. This is the first case, by the way, where preventing property damage from climate change has been used as part of a 'lawful excuse' defence in Crown Court.
The principal expert witness for the defence was James Hansen; the written testimony that he submitted for the case is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf Be warned that it is, as he says, 'quite long' [14 A4 pages].
I don't think Richard is your type *snigger*
I don't particularly agree with your views on Zak Goldsmith Iain. He obviously believes entirely in the climate change stuff and it is therefore quite easy to see how he'd think it was important enough to break the law for.... the same argument could be used to justify countless protests through the ages from the Civil Right Movement to the rebel barons at Runnymede. They all broke the law but had a higher purpose. However, please carry on blogging about whatever the hell you want to! Maybe a quick word about Walcott as you watched the match?
Fight, fight, fight. :-)
How could you have been watching the match last night, when you had a live chat going last night on your West Ham site? And only after that did you go and watch some rubbish on telly (I will not embarass you with its name....)
Ah, Chris, you have got me banged to rights. Sort of. Part of the Live Chat was about the match - which I was indeed watching! And yes, I plead guilty to watching Desperate Housewives.
If you didn't matter he wouldn't read you.`EUR is hugely read, and influential.Stop being annoyed at the attention it gives you - it's flattery - and it makes you look a silly blogger to gripe.
...leave 'im Iain, he's not worf it!
"So, sorry to disappoint Richard, but apart from writing this blog, I do have a life, you know. Unlike some".
Great stuff Iain.
His joint book on the EU "The great deception" is a well-worth-it read. However since part of his proposition on Monnet's little scam is that others in the Commission want to tell you what to do, think, write, it is a bit rich for him to try to do the same.
It's your blog after all.
However sorry to disappoint you but I am pleased the jury thought the way they did. The growth of authoritarian government edicts - usually supporting cartel business - needs kerbing.
And as others have mentioned, just because it is the law does not mean it is correct. If we had a truly representative Parliament we would have far fewer such actions.
Iain, beachhutman and loophole are both correct, North is just jelous of the sucess of your site,and is just try to add gravitas to his by slagging you and yours off.
Iain
Hugely entertained, and it all makes blogging rather fun - what is the point of having friends if you can't slag them off?
You now have the distinction of adding your view, as opposed to the Telegraph, which rather perversely, finds the issue not important enough to report on!
Mind you, if we are to listen to arch europhile Jon Worth, then hush your mouth, we shouldn't be talking about energy at all.
Thankfully, we are not judged by those who comment on our blogs - otherwise I for one would be in prison.
Sorry, but this is going to get complicated.
I am Richard D. North and I am not Richard North (that is: I am not the anti-EU colleague of Christopher Booker). I am not as cross about the climate change lobby as plain old no-"D" Richard North.
All that said, I do agree with Iain and RN that Greenpeace should never have been allowed to get off a criminal damages charge with its spurious and disingenuous legal wrinkle.
May I beg anyone who's interested to look at www.livingissues.com, where we discuss this very matter?
Is he any relation to Peter North, he of the "monster facial"?
Can't satisfy everyone, Iain.
I read the EUReferendum blog every day and reckon it's indispensible. Richard North is sometimes his own worst enemy with his sharp retorts to readers on the blog forum. But I prefer a tetchy putdown from the old curmudgeon than a silkily spun compliment from Mr Mandelson or others of his EU ilk. He's got his heart in the right place.
If I owned that power station I would go round and torch the local hippy hang out in order to protect my property from future criminal damage which now seems to be legal.
Iain, I saw the title and thought of the story (Mae West?) ...
"Do you think you could kill a man?"
"How long have I got"
Ah well Iain, this is what happens when you keep company with swivel-eyed right-wing loons (Europhobe obsessives, climate change deniers, tax-cuts-at-all-costs freaks, und so weiter ad infinitum) wrapped in their cosy microscopic worlds blowing their bugbears out of all proportion.
Perhaps if the Tories were devoid of these monomaniacs and engaged with real Britain rather than pandering to these whingers they might not have got smashed at the last three elections. Just a thought...
I am not a Richard North . . .
OLIVER L. NORTH IS A COMBAT DECORATED MARINE, A #1 BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, THE FOUNDER OF A SMALL BUSINESS, AN INVENTOR WITH THREE U.S. PATENTS, A SYNDICATED COLUMNIST, AND THE HOST OF “WAR STORIES” ON THE FOX A CHANNEL. YET, HE CLAIMS HIS MOST IMPORTANT ACCOMPLISHMENT IS TO BE “THE HUSBAND OF ONE, THE FATHER OF FOUR AND THE GRANDFATHER OF ELEVEN.”
NORTH WAS BORN IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, GRADUATED FROM THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, AND SERVED 22 YEARS AS A U.S. MARINE. HIS AWARDS FOR SERVICE IN COMBAT INCLUDE THE SILVER STAR, THE BRONZE STAR FOR VALOR AND TWO PURPLE HEARTS FOR WOUNDS IN COMBAT.
ASSIGNED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORTH WAS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S COUNTER-TERRORISM COORDINATOR FROM 1983-1986. HE WAS INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE RESCUE OF 804 MEDICAL STUDENTS ON THE ISLAND OF GRENADA AND PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN THE DARING CAPTURE OF THE HIJACKERS OF THE CRUISE SHIP ACHILLE LAURO. AFTER HELPING PLAN THE U.S. RAID ON MUAMMAR QADDAFI’S TERRORIST BASES IN LIBYA, NORTH WAS TARGETED FOR ASSASSINATION BY ABU NIDAL, THE INFAMOUS TERRORIST FOUND DEAD IN BAGHDAD IN AUGUST, 2002. PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN DESCRIBED HIM AS “AN AMERICAN HERO.”
SINCE 2001, NORTH HAS BEEN THE HOST OF “WAR STORIES” – THE AWARD-WINNING MILITARY DOCUMENTARY SERIES ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL. HE HAS ALSO AUTHORED ELEVEN BOOKS – ALL OF THEM NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLERS. HIS NEXT BOOK, AMERICAN HEROES, BASED ON HIS EXTENSIVE COVERAGE OF U.S. MILITARY UNITS ENGAGED IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND THE PHILIPPINES WILL BE PUBLISHED IN APRIL 2008.
NORTH IS A LIFE MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HE IS ALSO THE FOUNDER OF FREEDOM ALLIANCE, A FOUNDATION THAT PROVIDES COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF SERVICE MEMBERS KILLED IN ACTION.
Dale,
North does kinda have a point. No offence intended but the tory blog network can be insufferably inane and insipid to the point of dispair and while you're all conkers deep in Camerons backside, some of us are actually shitting a brick at how we're going to pay our bills and whether we will still have electricity in the next decade.
This is a situation the tories have utterly failed to engage on and in many respects they are making the situation immeasurably worse and yet you give blog inches to some real witless drivel, more often than not these days.
You are obsessed with politicians but not politics. Here's a news flash... most of us are utterly sick of the lot of them.
Steve.
Neither am I
"Perhaps if the Tories were devoid of these monomaniacs and engaged with real Britain rather than pandering to these whingers they might not have got smashed at the last three elections. Just a thought..."
I suppose it's of little consequence that a substantial majority of real Britons wanted a vote on the, "Treaty" just as the Irish actually did. Hmm, I wonder what the result would have been?
None of us LIKE you Iain, you are just a fact of life, like measles...
Martin, how very nice of you. Feel free to say hello at the LibDem conference. I'll decide on my response at the time.
The man's a snob who thinks he's better than everyone else and never got over not becoming a UKIP MEP which is why he constantly has a go at them.
If Richard North didn't spend most of his time saying how brilliant he is and how stupid everyone else is he might achieve something. On the other hand, he's not as ghastly as your friend Helen.
Arrogant! You forgot Arrogant!
Stupid boy!
Oh come on Iain.
Richard North was, rightly, having a go at not just you, but Guido and ConHome as well.
You all purport to be political blogs, yet not a peep from you on one of the most important court cases in English history.
Guess Tory Tottie matters more than a court condoning property damage, or Windmill Dave failing to discipline the prospective Tory candidate for Richmond Park for his shameful part in the proceedings.
He wasn't so slow to fire that bloke who DIDN'T make a racist comment.
On the subject of the court case (rather than the subject of who is bitching at who) this is a black day for the rule of law. The law no longer seems to apply to the PC brigade & they have been given leave to do whatever they want in precisely the same way that previous politically correct thugs were given leave to destroy shops on the grounds that the Jews had been responsible for losing WW1.
From a radio interview this morning with one of these Greeshirts it is clear that the "prosecution" did not even attempt to dispute Hansen's perjury. It is a matter of record that when catastrophic warming has been publicly debated it has consistently failed to persuade the public.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=20938
This is why St Al has always refused to debate with any sceptic.
Had the prosecution done their duty & let a jury see all the evidence I suspect the result would have been different. Instead we saw a roll call of the "great & good" lying their heads off.
I don't know if an appeal is possible but if it is it should be done.
In particular Zac Goldsmith is a Conservative candidate. If Conservatism stands for anything it is that freedom requires the rule of law not of mobs. Mr Cameron cannot honourably support his continued standing for Parliament.
I am also a big fan of EUR and your diary Iain. What you write on your blogs is your business, and our pleasure.
I'm sure you would have commented on it, but given the importance of the decision I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of it, in general. I would have thought it would be especially interesting to you, because of your links with the Conservative Party. It is important to try and understand what the Conservative position on this is.
Should you get a more lenient fine for slashing a 4x4’s tires because the owner is ‘killing the planet’?
If someone shoots the chief exec, of say, a 'polluter', do you think they should get a more lenient sentence, because they are ‘saving the planet’?
All this is under the assumption that AGW is proven beyond all reasonable doubt (which it isn’t if you take a balanced view)..., to have a significant effect on global climate. If AGW is not a significant factor in ‘climate change’, could the law-breakers be sued in retrospect? It’s just plain vandalism in my view.
This is what it boils down to - rule of law. If the law is unjustified, we should petition a change in the law, not take it into our own hands (well, try and change the laws we still have control of - most of our laws are now made by the EU... ).
So the chap calling himself plain "Richard" is really called "Richard North" (one of the many). Is he too lazy to give this information directly, relying on us to click on the username of every random person who contributes?
I'm not spartacus either
Post a Comment