Greenpeace

[chrishscorp]

Is it illegal though? Greenpeace refer to it as destructive but they don't claim that it is illegal. From their web site:

Other than our new boulder barrier, there are no restrictions on industrial fishing in Offshore Brighton. If you think that makes no sense in an area which is supposed to be protected, you’re right. But sadly, this is the case for many of the UK’s so-called Marine Protected Areas.

This lack of real protection means all sorts of destructive industrial fishing boats can operate in Offshore Brighton. In 2019, bottom trawlers spent 3099 hours fishing in Offshore Brighton, making it one of the UK’s most heavily bottom trawled protected areas.

It would appear you are correct in which case it should be made illegal ASAP and enforced properly, the greatest threat to the fishing industry is overfishing and bottom trawling in specific fish breeding grounds like the dogger bank is nothing short of mad.

 

[dom]

If I steal a four pack of beans from the local coop, those beans will be replaced with new stock regardless of the right or wrongs of my actions.
If you factory trawler the dogger bank you are catching this weeks fish and next weeks fish and the fish for the next several years as its a breeding ground and growth area

I'm afraid this argument holds no water: if a farmer accidentally/deliberately/legally/illegally pollutes a river, an environmentalist cannot dig elephant traps in his field risking that his tractor falls in and kills him because he didn't think the court awarded a sufficiently heavy penalty, or as is likely in the fishermen's case, found that the farmer didn't break the law.

In the same way a fisherman who loses his vessel on one of these Greenpeace rocks cannot lawfully do-in Fearnely Whittingstall & Co.

People should bear in mind Newtons's Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

 

[dom]

And why do people fantasize about the RN emulating the Myanmar police and blasting live 4" shells either, at or into the vicinity of unarmed civilian vessels?

LOL yes we would have to find a RN boat that was free to start with.

Regarding all this naval bluster, did you know that the RN works closely with the French?

What if -- over a nice dinner -- a gung-ho French Officer shared his thoughts about Greenpeace with his prim British counterpart!

I suppose the RN officer could always argue in court that he only sank the big green vessel to stop trawling in that area once and for all !!

 

[Mark-1]

Regarding all this naval bluster, did you know that the RN works closely with the French?

What if -- over a nice dinner -- a gung-ho French Officer shared his thoughts about Greenpeace with his prim British counterpart!

I suppose the RN officer could always argue in court that he only sank the vessel to stop trawling in that area.

Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior - Wikipedia

Leaving aside all the other inexcusable aspects of that state sponsored crime, the idea that a ten minute delay would achieve what they anticipated is lunacy. If you were looking to maximise deaths a ten minute delay is exactly what you'd choose to give people time to filter back on board once the initial drama was over. Insane.

 

[steve1963]

Is there a point at which the destruction of the environment and lack of action by the administration becomes so desperate that direct, possibly dangerous & possibly illegal action is appropriate?

I would say that point had been reached many years ago

 

[Babylon]

I would say that point had been reached many years ago

Absolutely. Also don't forget however that the overwhelming amount of work done by Greenpeace and other environmental organisations involves sheer graft- from the local to the multinational - on a daily basis, year after year, decade after decade... and not (as our school-teachers were so fond of saying) for their own edification, but for all of us.

 

[25931]

I'm afraid this argument holds no water: if a farmer accidentally/deliberately/legally/illegally pollutes a river, an environmentalist cannot dig elephant traps in his field risking that his tractor falls in and kills him because he didn't think the court awarded a sufficiently heavy penalty, or as is likely in the fishermen's case, found that the farmer didn't break the law.

In the same way a fisherman who loses his vessel on one of these Greenpeace rocks cannot lawfully do-in Fearnely Whittingstall & Co.

People should bear in mind Newtons's Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

I touched the wrong button and registered a like. Newton was not considering the frequently illogical actions and re -actions of human beings and had there been a logical reaction to beam trawling fifty years ago it would have been made illegal and disappeared then.

 

[oldgit]

For those who feel that some action should be taken against Greenpeace regards rocks being placed on the sea bed, be it legally or using force of some description, There is a simple and obvious remedy.
Its simple.
Organise and fund a ship to go and lift all the rocks, after all their locations have been widely publicised.
The problem is of course its so much easier to come on a forum and suggest sending in the gunboats than to actually do something
oneself, which involves time and effort.
No doubt Greenpeace might offer their services if the price is right.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Equally, if a fishing boat now goes under and lives are endangered/lost I would expect the Greenpeace activists to be arrested and charged.

With what? Bearing in mind that the presence of the rocks has, as they intended, been given huge publicity

 

[JumbleDuck]

I touched the wrong button and registered a like.

Click on "Like" again and your liking is cancelled. Likelihood? Likeness?

 

[Stemar]

The UK govt should ban anything over 20M from within our 12 mile limit and ENFORCE it 1st visit by some nice chaps in a rib from a Warship to explain the ban the 2nd visit a 4 inch shell a 1000yds of their bows

Third, confiscation of the boat. It's the only way to get the attention of the money behind those things.

no right to shoot him/her, or harm them beyond the use of reasonable force

a shot across the bows 1000 yards away comes some way short of shooting them or using unreasonable force in my book.

 

[dom]

Third, confiscation of the boat. It's the only way to get the attention of the money behind those things.

....a shot across the bows 1000 yards away comes some way short of shooting them or using unreasonable force in my book.

This forum is getting somewhat ahead of itself here

I happen to think that bottom trawling should be made illegal and, like many conservationists, am delighted to see a consultation which will hopefully result in a change in the law. It runs until 28 March 2021 and in the meantime, there is nothing for UK law enforcement or military agencies to do:
Formal Consultation - MMO management of fishing in marine protected areas - Defra - Citizen Space

Aside from which, perhaps us yotties should consider a little more respect for the folk who go out to sea in sh1t and freezing weather to bring us back healthy and nutritious food. I happen to know that the vast majority of fishermen and their families also care about the environment - they don't want to wreck their businesses - and we all need to do this together. As for those harbouring fantasies about firing live ammunition, might I recommend a Netflix subscription.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

Aside from which, perhaps us yotties should consider a little more respect for the folk who go out to sea in sh1t and freezing weather to bring us back healthy and nutritious food. I happen to know that the vast majority of fishermen and their families also care about the environment - they don't want to wreck their businesses - and we all need to do this together. As for those harbouring fantasies about firing live ammunition, might I recommend a Netflix subscription.

You don't give up do you

Are you suggesting that this is the only way for humans to obtain "healthy and nutritious" food and that
fisherman risk their lives for us ? .

 

[RobbieW]

Seems to me that the sort of fishing Greenpeace are targeting is 'industrial' using large vessels, c. 100m +. Not the sort of fishing we imagine when talking about 'our' fishermen. See article - Why is the government letting destructive ‘supertrawlers’ fish in Marine Protected Areas? | Greenpeace UK

Industrial fishing also targets species that we dont use as food, sand eels are a good example. The sand eel stock off the NE coast collapsed during the 90s largely due to Danish industrial fishing, I dont believe it has recovered yet. Geenpeace opposed that and took action on the water, the Independent seems to have articles from the period but is currently unable to serve them. Sand eels are toward the bottom of the food chain, when stocks collapse it damages all species further up the chain including the ones we do eat.

 

[dom]

Seems to me that the sort of fishing Greenpeace are targeting is 'industrial' using large vessels, c. 100m +. Not the sort of fishing we imagine when talking about 'our' fishermen. See article - Why is the government letting destructive ‘supertrawlers’ fish in Marine Protected Areas? | Greenpeace UK

Industrial fishing also targets species that we dont use as food, sand eels are a good example. The sand eel stock off the NE coast collapsed during the 90s largely due to Danish industrial fishing, I dont believe it has recovered yet. Geenpeace opposed that and took action on the water, the Independent seems to have articles from the period but is currently unable to serve them. Sand eels are toward the bottom of the food chain, when stocks collapse it damages all species further up the chain including the ones we do eat.

Supertrawlers are a big problem and new research suggests that mackerel is the latest species to be impacted. There seems to be broad agreement in the UK about this but EU laws effectively prevented their banning in offshore zones.

Brexit changes this from the UK perspective, but it can nevertheless expect serious resistance from the EU in the contest of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The EU for its part is, however, keen to be seen as pro-environment, law abiding body which takes marine conservation seriously. If the PR hit is sufficiently bad, the EU will shift, there is no doubt about it. Which is why I'm optimistic.

 

[RobbieW]

...The EU for its part is, however, keen to be seen as pro-environment, law abiding body which takes marine conservation seriously. If the PR hit is sufficiently bad, the EU will shift, there is no doubt about it. Which is why I'm optimistic.

Its probably no mistake that the area Greenpeace targeted last week is on the UK/France border, mid channel. Whilst the French have 'history' with Greenpeace, it'd be interesting to see how the press in the rest of Europe are treating thier actions.

 

[dom]

Its probably no mistake that the area Greenpeace targeted last week is on the UK/France border, mid channel. Whilst the French have 'history' with Greenpeace, it'd be interesting to see how the press in the rest of Europe are treating their actions.

This is such an important point.

Getting the PR right in the context of toxic Brexit politics is key to a solution which benefits everyone in Europe. Get it wrong and the EU will shoot back down the AstraZeneca vaccine rabbit hole and continue to block progress.

 

[fisherman]

There are many fishing methods and technology creep that, were they to be proposed as a new activity today would not be allowed. Beam trawling, purse seining, scallop dredging, monofilament tangle and gill nets. Making an activity more dangerous is not a way forward, even if the activity is illegal.
It would be simpler to make a device rather like the Normandy beach defences, spiked steel that rolls over the footrope, drops through the mesh, then digs into the bottom and rips the trawl end to end. No danger, lots of repairs and no fish caught.
I'd like to know what weight these boulders are, fishermen are used to handling 'pebbles'.
This Greenpeace measure is rather like you putting 240volts around your property to deter burglars: even though you make it public that electrocution is possible I believe you would not do well in court if it happened.
Some kid sued a school after he broke in and jumped into a half filled swimming pool, I seem to remember.

 

[Greenheart]

...simpler to make a device rather like the Normandy beach defences, spiked steel that rolls over the footrope, drops through the mesh, then digs into the bottom and rips the trawl end to end. No danger, lots of repairs and no fish caught.

Sounds ingenious; any chance of a picture?

I'd been thinking tank-traps might beat boulders, although if there's a fair chance that boulders will create new permanent bio-zones, I'll gladly donate to Greenpeace in their work. I'd want assurance that they'll stay where they're dropped, though - not be retrieved.

 

[JumbleDuck]

This Greenpeace measure is rather like you putting 240volts around your property to deter burglars: even though you make it public that electrocution is possible I believe you would not do well in court if it happened.

I think it's more like the white painted boulders people place along the edge of the gardens or verges to dissuade drivers from using them.

Some kid sued a school after he broke in and jumped into a half filled swimming pool, I seem to remember.

That sounds more like an attractive nuisance, a dangerous object which is nevertheless attractive to children. Thanks to my exemplary behaviour in previous lives I am not a lawyer, but I think it would be hard to apply that to grown fishermen and well-publicised subsea hazards.