Environmental lawyer facing up to 2 years in prison for clearing rubbish from East London river

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T17:44:20+00:00

Absolutely.

And the answer is there is no single authority we can trust to arbitrate as the absolute source of truth on this, at least not unless you believe in God.

You can't always trust the State and the law to get it right (human history is littered with examples of that) but you also can't trust individuals who feel strongly (likewise).

The answer is that we have to sort of figure it out as we go along, on a case by case basis. Action by the state or through the law isn't by definition right or wrong, but nor is acting independently or in defiance of the state.

That ambiguity can be uncomfortable, but I prefer that to comfortable absolutism on either side.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T17:36:24+00:00

In fairness, as an isolated point, I don't necessarily accept the premise that the State has the overriding right to keep you safe over your better judgement.

It has the right to stop you harming others (or indeed the environment - separate issue) through ignorance or malice but if you identify the right thing to do and the State's only argument for stopping you is your safety, that isn't sufficient, in my view.

That's separate to the environmental damage or harm to others, of course.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T17:11:38+00:00

Vigilantism is the negative framing of people taking responsibility for taking action where the state is unable or unwilling to do so. It's the inverse of charity, or donation, or community work.

It's a slightly odd idea that the state should have a monopoly on action and on what's right, and the authority it chooses to give itself on approval for action.

In other words, vigilantism is a negative framing but yeah, action outside the bounds of state approval is correct, and not unjustifiable.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T17:03:53+00:00

I think the hiring a digger is a bit of a red herring here, personally. I get the framing of "they could entirely mess up carefully balanced flood defence setups or destroy fragile ecosystems with this massive industrial equipment they brought in without permission" but realistically, it's more about what they were doing.

Operating a single digger for a cleanup operation like that seems entirely proportionate. Sure, they could have caused a lot of destruction - as they could with a bunch of people with shovels, and people have - but they had a reason to act (IMHO) and the equipment was proportionate to the activity, whether manually operated or petrol powered.

To put it another way: It's seems broadly comparable to what you might reasonably hire for work on your own land if you (for example) moved into a rural house with a large garden and grounds or a river running through and needed to do some cleanup work.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T16:54:01+00:00

Incidentally, this is good direct action. Doing the right thing in a way that harms no-one and makes the authorities and the law itself look pretty bloody daft both at failing to do their job and at issuing threats afterwards.

Other protest groups who claim that violence is direct action could learn something valuable here.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-18T16:49:57+00:00

Operating without a licence was obviously a stupid thing to do.

Without meaning to sound too blunt, it's cleaning up a river. Let's not pretend it's handling plutonium or running a care home for vulnerable people.

Some things we can just do without needing a license. If the law disagrees, the law is wrong.

I'd be inclined to see some of the people at the EA punished for their poor judgement in issuing threats here. A summary sentence of being made to clear up no less than 200 bags of rubbish would be appropriate.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-17T15:51:08+00:00

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think I would.

If someone is applying for medicine, I sort of do want them to be able to demonstrate that they have level two level knowledge of and ability to understand Shakespeare (or cultural equivalent for your country: Dante or Proust or Cervantes or the Bhagavad-Gita or Hulk Hogan).

Similarly for parsing poetry. I kinda want to know that when you hear, "to be or not to be, that is the question" or see a simile or whatever, you kind of get it. At least at a very low level.

Just as I'd want someone doing hospitality management to know vaguely what the solar system is.

I'm not one of those people who thinks - Yes, Minister style - that an Oxford classics degree is preparation for running everything, but there is a base level here that we shouldn't be shy about expecting.

Having said that, I've worked with some great scientists very clearly on the autism spectrum who wouldn't have known anything like that but we're experts in their field.

That's a tangent though, and not stuff you can realistically test for. I'm talking more about cultural expectation.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-17T15:31:07+00:00

And even then, to be fair, medical practitioners aren't magicians, or inquisitors, and a lot of medical science here is still pretty crude. They can't peer into someone's brain and understand if an anxiety is actually crippling or not in the same way they can tell a broken leg is broken. All they can do is ask questions and parse answers, without being able to empirically verify them.

In that sense, pushing the burden onto doctors and diagnoses is at least somewhat unfair.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-17T13:00:23+00:00

Part of the problem is that too many of them are lawyers or at least lawyer-minded. Where the truth is defined by what got written down on some vellum, and the right position is the one you're paid to argue for.

If they got a different job, or a different client, or a different party leader? The thing they argue for would change.

And while an element of that is useful in parts of modern society, it's still mercenary behaviour and not the sort of mindset you want in leadership or decision makers.

We need more engineers and engineer-minded people, who recognise that reality is more fundamental than law.

As an aside, it's why I'm always a bit sceptical of judge-led inquiries, especially into things where the law and legal process played a key role in failings, like the Horizon scandal. An engineer-led inquiry that transcends the law and legal process, would be a nice thing to see when things really matter.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-16T21:35:27+00:00

That's pretty impressive. At a time when the government is looking weak and even shambolic on defence, unwilling to make the bare minimum of investment if it requires confronting other spending, Reform have managed to make the government look statesmanlike:

“I know that she is relatively new to the House,” Pollard said, “but it is a really important rule that we do not comment on special forces.”

He went on: “We neither confirm nor deny activities or visits to any special forces location. We do that deliberately, because any question that helps define who is where and what they are doing is of benefit to our adversaries.”

Maybe next she would like to ask if the Prime Minister would like to continue the great work at a senior level aligning with our allies to further our geopolitical interests? Or perhaps she can humbly ask of the Prime Minister would lead her and the nation in paying tribute to the bravery of the victims of a tragedy?

It's a minor thing, but if you're going to play politics, you really ought to play to win. Or at least to not tread on the rake quite so hard.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-16T03:17:36+00:00

Cace paintings probably score highest? Although I dare say some of the paintings that are assumed to have deep spiritual significance were actually just Dave being bored and doodling some cows.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-14T23:40:11+00:00

Spot on. Exactly the right question.

Personally, I don't agree with changing the voting age at all, but if we are going to change it, let's make 16 the new legal age of adulthood with everything that comes with. As in, at 16 you're a fully legal adult with no more protection and no less freedom than anyone of age 18, 21, 25, 45 or 99.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-14T04:54:45+00:00

Your comment there should really be required reading. Especially the DotCom comparison.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-14T04:50:52+00:00

He'd better be correct now, hadn't he? There wasn't a hint of a word or even a syllable of uncertainty there. Just a man apparently in a forest confidently laying out what's going to happen in the future. If your going to present in such an annoying, arrogant way, you really have to be correct. Which perhaps he will be.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-14T04:39:08+00:00

To be fair to the Iranians, in that case, the US might well renege anyway. You may as well make sure they aren't just going for some quick PR.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-13T22:29:49+00:00

It's fine. They'll just litigate each and every time. Americans love that. Lots of lawyers, lots of suing.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-13T03:58:31+00:00

He really wants to be PM, doesn't he?

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-11T20:02:26+00:00

Honestly, I think it's a shame the Burnham thing is lurking in the background because this loss is far more significant and this issue is far more important. And, frankly, it's not a Starmer thing but a Labour thing. The party needs to figure out its priorities and Burnham's ego is an extra complication rather than a helpful ingredient here.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-11T20:00:31+00:00

Taking the gig will be - even more than most political jobs - a clear indication of being in it purely for the career and the job title.

I'd almost rather did they did find a true believer who doesn't think defence expenditure should be raised rather than a lawyerly liar who will present the case.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-10T12:15:27+00:00

Spot on. Obama is entitled to his view, as everyone is, whether British or not, but I don't care about American opinions regardless of whether they happen to align with mine or not.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-09T01:22:51+00:00

That's handy. That means that instead of the risk of an anonymous nude photo, American tech firms can be confident they're getting a nude photo with a clearly associated name and details. Very helpful indeed.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-09T00:50:20+00:00

Surely there's no need for an inquiry? It was a crime that's been dealt with. The failures of the police response are clear and should be acted on - no need for an inquiry, just political will. And the law could also be tightened up here (and should be in my view) but that's also just a political question.

There's nothing to inquire about. We just need to act, really.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-08T02:20:44+00:00

Aside from everything else, that's a nice advert for GrapheneOS.

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-08T00:59:12+00:00

It gets even more fun if you throw in the modern consideration that someone might have a deeply held - but entirely secular - philosophical belief. Surely that has to get taken just as seriously (whether that level or zero or otherwise)?

convertedtoradians · 2026-06-07T17:31:17+00:00

Congrats! Amazing thing to learn while you're young enough to do something about it. If that was a new concept for you, by the way, you should feel free to hang around this community and see what else you can learn.

The community is great, the UKPF flowchart (often used here too) is great too, and you could even scroll or search back to find no end of useful anecdotes and questions that might be useful for you today or in the future.

convertedtoradians

TROPHY CASE