Judges for Extinction Rebellion

A judge reportedly told XR activists he supported them – while he was sentencing them.

spiked

Share

Extinction Rebellion has got to be the most establishment-friendly rebel group in history. Not only are these eco-alarmists supported by luvvies, leading politicians and a former Archbishop of Canterbury – they are also apparently popular among the judiciary.

As Left Foot Forward reports, Colin Davis, an Extinction Rebellion activist, has claimed that a district judge offered words of support to him and a group of his fellow eco-campaigners, while he was sentencing them.

According to Davis, the deputy district judge, Judge Noble, told the group that he hoped they would succeed. Of six defendants, three were found guilty of breaching public-order laws during a protest last April (the other three were found not guilty on a technicality).

Still, Noble, according to Davis, said he had been ‘totally overwhelmed by all the defendants’, said it was a ‘pleasure to deal with people so different from those I deal with in my regular life’, and finished by saying ‘you have to succeed’.

This is a remarkable admission of bias. At one point, Noble even allegedly admitted that ‘this is going to be my last Extinction Rebellion trial for a little while. I think they only allow us to do so many of these before our sympathies start to overwhelm us.’

As Left Foot Forward points out, ‘No media were present at the sentencing and recording is not allowed, but Davis said that a friend of one of the defendants in the public gallery made notes of Noble’s sentencing remarks’.

But if what Davis is alleging is true (and no one so far has challenged it), then Noble has brought the law, as spiked contributor and barrister Jon Holbrook has put it, into disrepute, undermining the very concept of equality before the law.

What’s more, he has reminded us what a thoroughly elite-friendly movement Extinction Rebellion is. Its message of bourgeois miserabilism and eco-austerity clearly resonates deeply with the very establishment it claims to rail against.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Dean D

7th February 2020 at 6:06 pm

The extinction events throughout time, are all part of an inherently natural process.
Once you declare that you are defying extinction, you only become a more active participant in the process.
Interesting that so many decrying our species’ imminant demise, are themselves choosing not to procreate…And the common reasoning is pure classical biology: Unviable environment for offspring survival.
Nature is fascinating…

William Murphy

4th February 2020 at 8:46 am

You can imagine the row if a judge had so publicly and so fulsomely sympathised with any other type of defendant:. After all, paedos are probably the products of childhood trauma and bank robbers are just victims of an unequal society and really needed the wicked capitalists’ money. And the quote: ‘you have to succeed”. Succeed in what way? Close down any form of public as well as private transport? OK, that Tube train they stopped might have been electric and incredibly efficient at mass transportation. But it was obviously totally evil, with all the carbon which was produced by its manufacturing and generating the electricity.

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 8:41 am

To be fair to the judge, if your day was filled with sentencing ne’er do wells who’ve been involved in GBH and badger baiting and the like, and suddenly you’re presented with a half-dozen well-spoken young environmentalists, some of whom were at uni with your daughter, wouldn’t you, too, be entranced?

Dominic Straiton

3rd February 2020 at 6:40 pm

The British judiciary is as impartial as Zimbabwes.

Rock Ape

3rd February 2020 at 6:33 pm

Extinction Rebellion = Eco Terrorists……so the “Judge” is a terrorist sympathizer.
Call this hyperbole if you like but I stand by it.

T Zazoo

4th February 2020 at 2:09 am

It’s hyperbole.

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 8:38 am

But he stands by it.

Geoff Cox

3rd February 2020 at 5:29 pm

Just a note of caution here. The Judge could have been unbiased in his handling of the case and his sentencing, whilst at the same time making sympathetic statements in his summing up. So unless we can show the Judge(s) found the three not guilty incorrectly (I’m assuming it was not a jury trial) or that he sentenced the other three too leniently, the judge doesn’t have a case to answer.

jessica christon

3rd February 2020 at 8:34 pm

Perhaps so, but can you imagine the reaction that would follow had the judge had sympathised worth the brexit supporters who protested Anna Soubry a while back, even if it was done while sentencing them impartially? He would have had to resign. I just hope this story isn’t true.

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 7:42 am

Quite so, Jessica – it seems always to be one rule for one side, another rule for the other. But I just put up my balancing comment in the hopes that we can be better than them.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.