AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Russia must pay the Netherlands about 5.5 million euros ($6.4 million) in damages for seizing the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise in 2013, an international arbitration panel ruled on Tuesday.

The five-member panel, based in Vienna, decided in 2015 that Russia was liable under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and has now put a price on damages to the ship, as well as the wrongful arrest and suffering of 30 people aboard.

Russia declined to take part in the proceedings.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arbitration- ... 30606.html

Some background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeac ... _ship_case

Well, Russia probably aint going to pay, so probably the Dutch tax-payer will pay and the Dutch government will have a claim on the Russian government. Perhaps the Dutch government could seize the Russian embassy and sell it, we aren't BFF with Russia at the moment, so it doesn't matter.

Good ruling.

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

have you seen this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9mhnWVWeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Then you know what must be done if you want to stay at 7bn. Are you prepared to do that? And you know how many kids have been born world wide and can put that in perspective. But I guess you haven't seen it if you still saying this. Or it might me my fault that I haven't given you the link yet, well now you have, so now you are educated.

And still not surprising that you support Putin's moves, even if Russia is convicted in court, you still believe he was right.

MSPbrandon wrote:

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

It isn't a fine, it is the damage Russia caused to the Greenpeace vessel: Arctic Sunrise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Arctic_Sunrise

Not the first time that one of their ships is damaged, their Rainbow Warrior was bombed by the French secret service in 1986, it was about to sail to protest and monitor French nuclear test in Moruroa Atoll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_(1955)

Grab this bad boy in the North Sea with the help of some other EU nations. I'm sure they'll pay up the next day.

Dutchy wrote:

MSPbrandon wrote:

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

It isn't a fine, it is the damage Russia caused to the Greenpeace vessel: Arctic Sunrise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Arctic_Sunrise

I understand.

Greenpeace got what they deserved. Russia should turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of courts and nations that look the other way and ignore the criminal and immoral actions of this organization.

The moment that they attempted to board the drilling rig they were involved in criminal activity.

There is nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace got what they deserved. Russia should turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of courts and nations that look the other way and ignore the criminal and immoral actions of this organization.

The moment that they attempted to board the drilling rig they were involved in criminal activity.

There is nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

The court doesn't agree with your point of view, Bob.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace got what they deserved. Russia should turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of courts and nations that look the other way and ignore the criminal and immoral actions of this organization.

The moment that they attempted to board the drilling rig they were involved in criminal activity.

There is nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

The court doesn't agree with your point of view, Bob.

That is perfectly obvious from what I wrote, and hardly worth pointing out.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace got what they deserved. Russia should turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of courts and nations that look the other way and ignore the criminal and immoral actions of this organization.

The moment that they attempted to board the drilling rig they were involved in criminal activity.

There is nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

The court doesn't agree with your point of view, Bob.

That is perfectly obvious from what I wrote, and hardly worth pointing out.

Well, you discard a court and you think you're own findings are above the ones from an international court, so I thought it was worth well to point it out. You are the one which always points out the legal things and in this case, you name this a criminal action by Greenpeace, so let me confront you with your own way of doing things, proof us why this is criminal while a court says it was the Russians who were wrong according to the law.

You can call it immoral, that is your own moral framework, but not just label it criminal.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The court doesn't agree with your point of view, Bob.

That is perfectly obvious from what I wrote, and hardly worth pointing out.

Well, you discard a court and you think you're own findings are above the ones from an international court, so I thought it was worth well to point it out. You are the one which always points out the legal things and in this case, you name this a criminal action by Greenpeace, so let me confront you with your own way of doing things, proof us why this is criminal while a court says it was the Russians who were wrong according to the law.

You can call it immoral, that is your own moral framework, but not just label it criminal.

The moment that you set unwelcomed foot on my property, you are guilty of trespass. Your intent for doing so may add other charges.

The Russians confronted and arrested an attacking naval force. Any court that does not recognize that be damned.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

That is perfectly obvious from what I wrote, and hardly worth pointing out.

Well, you discard a court and you think you're own findings are above the ones from an international court, so I thought it was worth well to point it out. You are the one which always points out the legal things and in this case, you name this a criminal action by Greenpeace, so let me confront you with your own way of doing things, proof us why this is criminal while a court says it was the Russians who were wrong according to the law.

You can call it immoral, that is your own moral framework, but not just label it criminal.

The moment that you set unwelcomed foot on my property, you are guilty of trespass. Your intent for doing so may add other charges.

The Russians confronted and arrested an attacking naval force. Any court that does not recognize that be damned.

Fine, that is your opinion, legal facts are against you. And now you are saying you don't recognize an international court ruling. Luckily you aren't a judge with the international courts. And I ascertain that in this case, you are being hypocritical. Can't read it in any other way, sorry.

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

Sarcasm?

Greenpeace has a long history of illegal actions, assuming that they are a law unto themelves. They have damaged and defaced other ships with impunity.

They are a renegade "conservation" group and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Bleeding hearts can wail and gnash their teeth. The Greenpeace felons should have served a few years in a Russian jail, and th ship should have been confiscated as a "prize of war".

Ad hominems do not bother me one bit.

Russia will pay when Jesus comes back, which is the same time Greenpeace will stop being Greenpeace.

This should be the thread closer because we all know I'm right.

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace has a long history of illegal actions, assuming that they are a law unto themelves. They have damaged and defaced other ships with impunity.

They are a renegade "conservation" group and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Could you please elaborate on your assertion that Greenpeace things they are a law unto themselves? Could you elaborate which ships they have damaged with impunity? Could you elaborate why they are a renegade group? Could you elaborate for which actions they need to be punished?

BobPatterson wrote:

Bleeding hearts can wail and gnash their teeth. The Greenpeace felons should have served a few years in a Russian jail, and th ship should have been confiscated as a "prize of war".

And again, you express an opinion, not based on any law or based in reality. So what you are saying here, The Greenpeace protesters should serve a few years in a Russian jail based on your opinions alone. Facts of this case: they are not convicted in Russia, they were released. The ship was returned to Greenpeace, albeit with a lot of damaged caused by Russia. Russia is convicted by a court for illegally boarding this ship in the high seas. So you are perfectly ok with calling this by your gut feelings after courts have ruled, and may I dare to do an assertion of my own, you are not familiar with all the case details, you are not familiar with the stories of the people whom actually were there, you are not familiar with Russian law, you are not familiar with the law of the sea. But yet you feel you are qualified enough to call out the ruling of an international court and the Russian justice system.

I would call what it is: arrogance. And yes I know, I hurt your feelings with this, whether you care to admit it or not, but hey why not, it is your hypocritical attitude in this case which provokes this kind of reaction, what do you expect if in other cases you fiercely calling out anyone whom dare to call anyone a traitor - without convictions - in an ongoing investigation - and like I have said before, I do respect that, if that was a principal point, but this thread shows it isn't -, but you are happily calling for some jail time for someone whose case is closed and you're happy to rule against an international court of top-notch judges. So that shows you are biased, to say the least, and quite nationalistic because all the other cases where against America or Americans.

I don't think you will admit it, or that you will have a hard look into the mirror and that is a shame because you could have and do sometimes bring up some good points.

BobPatterson wrote:

Ad hominems do not bother me one bit.

And which ad hominem are you talking about? Calling your argumentation hypocritical? Well, that is no ad hominem my friend, no personal attack. That's just labeling our argument for what it is. And, Bob, the fact you're mentioning this means you do care on one level or the another

BobPatterson wrote:

The moment that they attempted to board the drilling rig they were involved in criminal activity..

Attempted trespassing is not a crime pretty much anywhere. That is why the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Dutch court and the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that Russia is in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. So, whatever you think, you are as wrong as anyone can be in that matter.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is the only applicable law in Russia when it comes to the sea, and all of the halfway civilized world to a degree that even the USA appleis the law, despite being no signatory state, along with Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Rwanda and the United Arab Emirates. As usual smack among the light houses of the rule of law.

best regards
Thomas

Fair goes, Tommy. You're being a bit harsh and I don't mean on Bob.

Lumping poor old Fürstentum Liechtenstein in with North Korea and the United States is a bit unjust. In relation to the International Law of the Sea their accession might not be a priority as the Principality is double-landlocked, as is Bhutan. Central African Republic is also landlocked but only singly, as are Afghanistanan, Rwanda and neighbouring Burundi.

RoySFlying wrote:

Fair goes, Tommy. You're being a bit harsh and I don't mean on Bob.

Lumping poor old Fürstentum Liechtenstein in with North Korea and the United States is a bit unjust. In relation to the International Law of the Sea their accession might not be a priority as the Principality is double-landlocked, as is Bhutan. Central African Republic is also landlocked but only singly, as are Afghanistanan, Rwanda and neighbouring Burundi.

Haha, nice catch. BTW Land locked, doesn't mean they have no ships showing their flags, see Mongolia http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/mongolia ... hant-navy/

RoySFlying wrote:

Fair goes, Tommy. You're being a bit harsh and I don't mean on Bob.

Lumping poor old Fürstentum Liechtenstein in with North Korea and the United States is a bit unjust. In relation to the International Law of the Sea their accession might not be a priority as the Principality is double-landlocked, as is Bhutan. Central African Republic is also landlocked but only singly, as are Afghanistanan, Rwanda and neighbouring Burundi.

My mistake, i should have checked which of those states doesn´t have a reason to sign due to not having a Navy, merchant or otherwise.

Thank you for pointing that out.

best regards
Thomas

MSPbrandon wrote:

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

They seized the ship in the Pechora Sea which is not as far as I know international waters. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had Greenpeace tried boarding a platfrom in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico?

Kiwirob wrote:

They seized the ship in the Pechora Sea which is not as far as I know international waters.

it is international waters, Russia does not make any statement to the contrary.

Do you think the outcome would have been any different had Greenpeace tried boarding a platfrom in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico?

The US, i know this is technical, is not a signatory to the agreement, but Greenpeace has boarded rigs without illegal detainment and seizure
And Greenpeace had already boarded equipment in the North Sea without illegal detainment and seizure.

best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob wrote:

MSPbrandon wrote:

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

They seized the ship in the Pechora Sea which is not as far as I know international waters. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had Greenpeace tried boarding a platfrom in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico?

From the Wiki article: "Russian authorities seized the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in international waters in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone on 19 September 2013, arrested the crew at gunpoint, towed the ship to Murmansk, and detained the crew of 28 activists and two freelance journalists. "

So outside the 12nm zone but inside the 200nm EEC zone. Why would the outcome be any different, if the country involved did the same as Russia if it was in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, and the action was taken within the EEC but outside the 12nm zone, are you implying that for some countries the rules are different?

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

MSPbrandon wrote:

No, they did not. They seized a ship and arrested people in International waters. NOT legal. I think the fine is rather small, all things considered.

They seized the ship in the Pechora Sea which is not as far as I know international waters. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had Greenpeace tried boarding a platfrom in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico?

From the Wiki article: "Russian authorities seized the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in international waters in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone on 19 September 2013, arrested the crew at gunpoint, towed the ship to Murmansk, and detained the crew of 28 activists and two freelance journalists. "

So outside the 12nm zone but inside the 200nm EEC zone. Why would the outcome be any different, if the country involved did the same as Russia if it was in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, and the action was taken within the EEC but outside the 12nm zone, are you implying that for some countries the rules are different?

Yes that would be right. This sort of thing happens all the time with illegal fishing, boats caught fishing inside the exclusive zone then chased down boarded and seized in international waters, what's the difference here, change fishing for attempting to enter a platform to do damage, and bobs your uncle.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

They seized the ship in the Pechora Sea which is not as far as I know international waters. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had Greenpeace tried boarding a platfrom in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico?

From the Wiki article: "Russian authorities seized the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in international waters in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone on 19 September 2013, arrested the crew at gunpoint, towed the ship to Murmansk, and detained the crew of 28 activists and two freelance journalists. "

So outside the 12nm zone but inside the 200nm EEC zone. Why would the outcome be any different, if the country involved did the same as Russia if it was in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, and the action was taken within the EEC but outside the 12nm zone, are you implying that for some countries the rules are different?

Yes that would be right. This sort of thing happens all the time with illegal fishing, boats caught fishing inside the exclusive zone then chased down boarded and seized in international waters, what's the difference here, change fishing for attempting to enter a platform to do damage, and bobs your uncle.

You have to study the law for that or read the courts decision. I can imagine that you can protest (to damage is intended to do so, has that been shown?), but you can't steal fish.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace has a long history of illegal actions, assuming that they are a law unto themelves. They have damaged and defaced other ships with impunity.

They are a renegade "conservation" group and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Could you please elaborate on your assertion that Greenpeace things they are a law unto themselves? Could you elaborate which ships they have damaged with impunity? Could you elaborate why they are a renegade group? Could you elaborate for which actions they need to be punished?

I am quite sure that you have, over the years, read about Greenpeace "campaigns" and activities that have caused damage of various kinds, including the collision of one of their ships with a Japanese whaling vessel, destruction of crops, damage to a world heritage site, boarding of ships and numerous other illegal activities.

There are volumes of material available to you on the Internet, and I know you are capable of looking up these things. Here are just a few reports:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/ ... -freighter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsnorth_power_station
https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/trum ... cutors-say
https://www.rt.com/news/216295-nazca-li ... reenpeace/
http://www.sirc.org/articles/tide_again ... peace.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-tactics/

Of course I am expressing an opinion. That's what people do here.

I will ignore the rest of your rant.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Greenpeace has a long history of illegal actions, assuming that they are a law unto themelves. They have damaged and defaced other ships with impunity.

They are a renegade "conservation" group and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Could you please elaborate on your assertion that Greenpeace things they are a law unto themselves? Could you elaborate which ships they have damaged with impunity? Could you elaborate why they are a renegade group? Could you elaborate for which actions they need to be punished?

I am quite sure that you have, over the years, read about Greenpeace "campaigns" and activities that have caused damage of various kinds, including the collision of one of their ships with a Japanese whaling vessel, destruction of crops, damage to a world heritage site, boarding of ships and numerous other illegal activities.

There are volumes of material available to you on the Internet, and I know you are capable of looking up these things. Here are just a few reports:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/ ... -freighter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsnorth_power_station
https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/trum ... cutors-say
https://www.rt.com/news/216295-nazca-li ... reenpeace/
http://www.sirc.org/articles/tide_again ... peace.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-tactics/

Of course I am expressing an opinion. That's what people do here.

I will ignore the rest of your rant.

Ah ok, so if you do it, you are expressing an opinion, but if someone else does it, then it is not acceptable and you call shame. Ok clear, well that is hypocrisy, my friend.

As for Greenpeace, I only said in this case they did nothing wrong and yes they are known for the highly visual act, if it is illegal has to be determined, case by case. As for what happens in the high seas, that also has to be determined in a court of law, if it comes to that. But the Japanese are no kittens in the southern seas.

Dutchy wrote:

Ah ok, so if you do it, you are expressing an opinion, but if someone else does it, then it is not acceptable and you call shame. Ok clear, well that is hypocrisy, my friend.

The hypocrisy, if there is any, is in your misstatements of facts.

I have never been opposed to anyone having an opinion.

I do oppose those who invent their own version of facts.

You are welcome to your opinion that Greenpeace does no wrong, or did no wrong in this case.

But the facts say otherwise. Greenpeace mounted an expedition which included reporters aboard ship to record their deeds. The purpose of this expedition was to illegally assault Russian property that was legally situated in the Russian Economic Zone and engaged in legal activity.

During the assault the perpetrators were arrested and their ship was taken into custody. Any damage that occurred as a result of the Russians defending themselves should be charged to the account of the Greenpeace criminals.

You might not like my characterization of the facts.

Pity that.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ah ok, so if you do it, you are expressing an opinion, but if someone else does it, then it is not acceptable and you call shame. Ok clear, well that is hypocrisy, my friend.

The hypocrisy, if there is any, is in your misstatements of facts.

I have never been opposed to anyone having an opinion.

I do oppose those who invent their own version of facts.

You are welcome to your opinion that Greenpeace does no wrong, or did no wrong in this case.

But the facts say otherwise. Greenpeace mounted an expedition which included reporters aboard ship to record their deeds. The purpose of this expedition was to illegally assault Russian property that was legally situated in the Russian Economic Zone and engaged in legal activity.

During the assault the perpetrators were arrested and their ship was taken into custody. Any damage that occurred as a result of the Russians defending themselves should be charged to the account of the Greenpeace criminals.

You might not like my characterization of the facts.

Pity that.

And that is the whole point, you are classifying this as an illegal assault, well that is not a fact, that is your opinion. And people whom know, who have studied the case and with which we entrust to interpret the law ruled against it, even the Russians released them without a conviction. Further more the fact is that Russia was convicted for doing something wrong, not Greenpeace. Russia is convicted of paying damages, not Greenpeace. You might not know that protesting is a legal activity. And yes, I happened to think it is a good cause to protest against oil drilling in one of the most vulnerable areas, you might not see this point. Or you might see this point and say, well they might protest, but putting up signs is not okey.

The problem is that you are not giving a characterization of the facts, you are ignoring facts and you only give your opinion stated as facts. Just state it the way it is: just your opinions and we have no problem. Then there is no need to debate on the facts because you aren't stating any.
So just state that you think or your opinion is that the ruling of the court was wrong because Greenpeace had no right to protest the way they did and the Russians should be allowed to defend their property as they see fit.

So in the end, in the future you have no problem when someone calls Donald Trump Jr. a traitor without any conviction, now do you?

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ah ok, so if you do it, you are expressing an opinion, but if someone else does it, then it is not acceptable and you call shame. Ok clear, well that is hypocrisy, my friend.

The hypocrisy, if there is any, is in your misstatements of facts.

I have never been opposed to anyone having an opinion.

I do oppose those who invent their own version of facts.

You are welcome to your opinion that Greenpeace does no wrong, or did no wrong in this case.

But the facts say otherwise. Greenpeace mounted an expedition which included reporters aboard ship to record their deeds. The purpose of this expedition was to illegally assault Russian property that was legally situated in the Russian Economic Zone and engaged in legal activity.

During the assault the perpetrators were arrested and their ship was taken into custody. Any damage that occurred as a result of the Russians defending themselves should be charged to the account of the Greenpeace criminals.

You might not like my characterization of the facts.

Pity that.

And that is the whole point, you are classifying this as an illegal assault, well that is not a fact, that is your opinion. And people whom know, who have studied the case and with which we entrust to interpret the law ruled against it, even the Russians released them without a conviction. Further more the fact is that Russia was convicted for doing something wrong, not Greenpeace. Russia is convicted of paying damages, not Greenpeace. You might not know that protesting is a legal activity. And yes, I happened to think it is a good cause to protest against oil drilling in one of the most vulnerable areas, you might not see this point. Or you might see this point and say, well they might protest, but putting up signs is not okey.

The problem is that you are not giving a characterization of the facts, you are ignoring facts and you only give your opinion stated as facts. Just state it the way it is: just your opinions and we have no problem. Then there is no need to debate on the facts because you aren't stating any.
So just state that you think or your opinion is that the ruling of the court was wrong because Greenpeace had no right to protest the way they did and the Russians should be allowed to defend their property as they see fit.

So in the end, in the future you have no problem when someone calls Donald Trump Jr. a traitor without any conviction, now do you?

You are simply being ridiculous. If Greenpeace had done nothing but sail around the drilling platform while holding up signs or shouting their disapproval, there would have been no problem.

But that is not Greenpeace's methodology. They insist on the right to invade property not belonging to them and doing damage.

You and other fuzzy-headed protestors seem to think this is perfectly OK, and that property rights can be ignored with impunity.

Well it is not OK, and any court that refuses to protect property rights and uphold the right to defend one's property should be ignored. As should you be.

BobPatterson wrote:

You are simply being ridiculous. If Greenpeace had done nothing but sail around the drilling platform while holding up signs or shouting their disapproval, there would have been no problem.

But that is not Greenpeace's methodology. They insist on the right to invade property not belonging to them and doing damage.

You and other fuzzy-headed protestors seem to think this is perfectly OK, and that property rights can be ignored with impunity.

Well it is not OK, and any court that refuses to protect property rights and uphold the right to defend one's property should be ignored. As should you be.

Let me try to translate it for you:
In my opinion, you have simply a ridiculous argument, and I say well that is your opinion fine, I disagree.

Now you are doing your famous ad hominems, personal attack, not simply disagreeing with a point and Bob that is just not very nice.

Then you proceed in stating a fact, which isn't a fact, but a classification of a method and grossly simplifying things to fit apparently your world view. And you move right to "doing damage" saying it like this, it is their intent to do this, not a mere consequence and that is quite a different thing.

Then you try to see in my head and insult me, I guess that is perfectly ok with you, I'm a gentleman, so will not say what I think of you, acting like this.

Then you move right along to stating an opinion disguised as a fact again. And then we see your real reasoning at last, so good for you. And this is:
1. property rights are above any other right and you can defend it with any means necessary
2. if a court rules against rule 1, they are a fake court (yes you are given the same reasoning as your president which you claim to be against) and should be ignored.

And a fitting end with a thrashing comment to my person.

Yes your post are strangely entertaining, comical (sometimes even you don't mean it like that), hypocritical and self-serving. But mostly strangely entertaining.

And Bob, you do ignore most of my post, namely all the things which don't fit your personal views about yourself. Or things you find way too hard to answer, don't know which it is.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes your post are strangely entertaining.........

I'm glad that you feel entertained, although that was not my intent.

Dutchy wrote:

And Bob, you do ignore most of my post..........

Of course. Most of your post(s) is/are nonsense and I don't have enough time to respond to nonsense.

Have a nice day.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes your post are strangely entertaining.........

I'm glad that you feel entertained, although that was not my intent.

Dutchy wrote:

And Bob, you do ignore most of my post..........

Of course. Most of your post(s) is/are nonsense and I don't have enough time to respond to nonsense.

Have a nice day.

Again, let me help you: It is my opinion that your post(s) are nonsense. So we can all see where this comes from, you are not willing to think outside your narrow-minded frame, not willing to look to yourself. Your classification does nothing to me, considering the source

Meanwhile in Amsterdam: so, Bob, you are disapproving this action by Greenpeace as well:

http://www.nu.nl/amsterdam/4849659/lede ... redirect=1

Dutchy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

If Greenpeace really cared about the environment it should start fighting the real root cause of all environmental issues, which is unsustainable population growth. Instead of attacking random oil plants their activists should spend their time giving away free condoms and funding education in the developing world.

I think Russians did the right thing here.

have you seen this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9mhnWVWeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Then you know what must be done if you want to stay at 7bn. Are you prepared to do that? And you know how many kids have been born world wide and can put that in perspective. But I guess you haven't seen it if you still saying this. Or it might me my fault that I haven't given you the link yet, well now you have, so now you are educated.

And still not surprising that you support Putin's moves, even if Russia is convicted in court, you still believe he was right.

I've seen at least the first video a long time ago. It's not just the population which is an issue, but also our consumerist lifestyle and use of fossil fuels.

Historically the birth rate has dropped when populations have reached higher material standards of living, however this higher standard of living has also meant the rise of consumerist lifestyle and higher average carbon footprint per capita. Thus it won't help us much if people in developing world make less children if each adult and child simultaneously uses much more resources than before.

From an environmental perspective we simply can't afford everyone reaching same material standard of living as we currently enjoy here in the west, and yet this is what everyone tries to pursue when they get more wealthy. We don't need just dropping birth rates in the developing world, we also need to get rid of fossil fuels and the entire lifestyle based on mass consumption if we are to avoid massive environmental disasters. Unfortunately I can't see this happening until there's no other choice and it's way too late, our worldwide economic system is too dependent on this kind of behaviour and endless growth.

Dutchy wrote:

Meanwhile in Amsterdam: so, Bob, you are disapproving this action by Greenpeace as well:

Here is an article, in English, about this current Greanpeace crime: http://nltimes.nl/2017/07/20/greenpeace ... am-protest

The Amsterdam and Dutch Governments are complicit in the crime by not arresting and incarcerating the criminals.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Meanwhile in Amsterdam: so, Bob, you are disapproving this action by Greenpeace as well:

Here is an article, in English, about this current Greanpeace crime: http://nltimes.nl/2017/07/20/greenpeace ... am-protest

The Amsterdam and Dutch Governments are complicit in the crime by not arresting and incarcerating the criminals.

Lol, so now we all know how you stand in the world and it shows how rectilinear you are. In your world view, apparently, nobody has the right to protest on another one's property, no matter what the cause is. Well, that is a point of view, I don't subscribe to that point of view, there is a balance of interests, no right is absolute.

With this action, nobody was hurt, nothing was broken, nothing was trashed.

Radical different point of view, no point to discuss it further with you.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Meanwhile in Amsterdam: so, Bob, you are disapproving this action by Greenpeace as well:

Here is an article, in English, about this current Greanpeace crime: http://nltimes.nl/2017/07/20/greenpeace ... am-protest

The Amsterdam and Dutch Governments are complicit in the crime by not arresting and incarcerating the criminals.

Lol, so now we all know how you stand in the world and it shows how rectilinear you are. In your world view, apparently, nobody has the right to protest on another one's property, no matter what the cause is. Well, that is a point of view, I don't subscribe to that point of view, there is a balance of interests, no right is absolute.

With this action, nobody was hurt, nothing was broken, nothing was trashed.

Radical different point of view, no point to discuss it further with you.

We do not yet know the extent of damage they have done by:

1. Illegally invading a corporate office building.

2. Illegally locking themselves into or barricading themselves in some sort of conference room.

3. Illegally accessing the roof of the building and draping the side of the building with their billowing signage, held loosely in check from the wind by suspended human dead-weights.

You cast this as a "protest" but it is more than that. It is an invasion of property and commandeering of space that does not belong to the perpetrators.

Overlooking their crimes, as the Dutch Government has been doing, makes you complicit also, unless you speak out for lawful conduct.

If there is no point in discussing it further you will now kindly remain silent.

Tonight, I spoke to one of the persons who was actually there, so i do know

And I don't care how you qualified it since you are by far to rectilinear for me, black or white, while the world has many shades of gray. I noticed that before, and now we all know. So your opinion is your opinion and that's it.

As far as being lawful, as we concluded before, you don't care, you only care about your own framework. You reject the court's ruling, you may, but don't talk about lawful in that context that is just plain dumb.

Dutchy wrote:

Tonight, I spoke to one of the persons who was actually there, so i do know

And I don't care how you qualified it since you are by far to rectilinear for me, black or white, while the world has many shades of gray. I noticed that before, and now we all know. So your opinion is your opinion and that's it.

As far as being lawful, as we concluded before, you don't care, you only care about your own framework. You reject the court's ruling, you may, but don't talk about lawful in that context that is just plain dumb.

I figured you couldn't remain silent.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with a court ruling, but whether or not you support criminal activity.

You cannot bring yourself to understand that Greenpeace is no respecter of the rights of others.

They are criminals bringing disrespect to all conservationists.

Oh Bob, you classify it as a criminal activity, that is your opinion, not a fact. They were not even arrested, so it will never be a fact since they will not be convicted. So the question is why are you trying to frame it like this. It just shows that you are not willing to enter into any conversation, that's why I said it is quite pointless to discuss it with you and with every of your post you prove me right.

And since you clearly don't listen, why bother indeed.

All I say, no right is absolute. Did they not respect the rights of others, sure they did, was it just, in this case yes, they wanted to make a point and wanted media attention to the issue, in this case closing a coal plant in Amsterdam which NUON owns. Since no damage was done, other then inconviniance some people, I would say morally they can do this and therefore the right to protest outways the right of property.

So your assertion is wrong, yet again.

As for bringing disrespect to all conservationists, again that is your opinion, not a fact and I disagree with you.

You can frame all you want, it only makes me smile and I will take you less and less seriously.

Dutchy wrote:

Oh Bob, you classify it as a criminal activity, that is your opinion, not a fact. They were not even arrested, so it will never be a fact since they will not be convicted. So the question is why are you trying to frame it like this. It just shows that you are not willing to enter into any conversation, that's why I said it is quite pointless to discuss it with you and with every of your post you prove me right.

And since you clearly don't listen, why bother indeed.

All I say, no right is absolute. Did they not respect the rights of others, sure they did, was it just, in this case yes, they wanted to make a point and wanted media attention to the issue, in this case closing a coal plant in Amsterdam which NUON owns. Since no damage was done, other then inconviniance some people, I would say morally they can do this and therefore the right to protest outways the right of property.

So your assertion is wrong, yet again.

As for bringing disrespect to all conservationists, again that is your opinion, not a fact and I disagree with you.

You can frame all you want, it only makes me smile and I will take you less and less seriously.

Appropriating private property is a crime, whether you are charged or not. The ACT is criminal.

You will not admit that Greenpeace is bringing disrespect to conservationists because YOU WILL NOT READ material already offered to you (above):

Greenpeace under fire for-eco-terrorism tactics: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-tactics/

BobPatterson wrote:

Appropriating private property is a crime, whether you are charged or not. The ACT is criminal.

That would surely depend on what the law actually says and the legal definition of appropriation. I'm not an expert in Netherlands law but it is possible that entering a property is not regarded as appropriation. Certainly, the owners or tenants of the building have not been prevented from conducting business during the protest. The property still is in the legal possession of its owner despite what they would see as an inconveniet presence.

It is possible that an offence of trespass has been committed but again I am insufficiently knowledgable about law in the Netherlands. Here in Australia trespass is often a civil matter rather than a criminal one. But trespass can also become a criminal matter if the trespass involves destruction of property or continues in violation of a court order to vacate. Has either occurred in this instance?

BobPatterson wrote:

The Amsterdam and Dutch Governments are complicit in the crime by not arresting and incarcerating the criminals.

Governments, their law enforcement agencies, are in no way required to arrest or incarcerate anyone for any crime whatsoever. Same way we don´t prosecute people for their own private drug cache.

This is the European continent, we don´t toss people into jail just because we have legal standing to do so. Aside of real crimes like rape, battering and such, you know, the stuff you can free yourself of if you can agree with the victim on payments in the US, like your president did with his first wife, we don´t prosecute until charges are pressed or significant public interests exists. On the plus side no money gets you off if public interest exists.
Punishment isn´t really a goal of the criminal justice system here, it is reducing crime, as opposed to breeding crime like your system. We also don´t arrest people just because we can, unless there is significant risk of fleeling the jurisdiction, destroying evidence or going and do the same crime right again, you are not tossed in a cell. "Innocent until proven guilty" means innocent until proven guilty, not waiting for trial in a cell while being technically innocent.

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh Bob, you classify it as a criminal activity, that is your opinion, not a fact. They were not even arrested, so it will never be a fact since they will not be convicted. So the question is why are you trying to frame it like this. It just shows that you are not willing to enter into any conversation, that's why I said it is quite pointless to discuss it with you and with every of your post you prove me right.

And since you clearly don't listen, why bother indeed.

All I say, no right is absolute. Did they not respect the rights of others, sure they did, was it just, in this case yes, they wanted to make a point and wanted media attention to the issue, in this case closing a coal plant in Amsterdam which NUON owns. Since no damage was done, other then inconviniance some people, I would say morally they can do this and therefore the right to protest outways the right of property.

So your assertion is wrong, yet again.

As for bringing disrespect to all conservationists, again that is your opinion, not a fact and I disagree with you.

You can frame all you want, it only makes me smile and I will take you less and less seriously.

Appropriating private property is a crime, whether you are charged or not. The ACT is criminal.

You will not admit that Greenpeace is bringing disrespect to conservationists because YOU WILL NOT READ material already offered to you (above):

Greenpeace under fire for-eco-terrorism tactics: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-tactics/

Do you recognize that, under some circumstances, the right of property isn't absolute? Do you recognize the right to protest?

About the article, read it. I never said I do agree with 100% of the tactics of Greenpeace, but your rant about them is ridiculous without any nuance. And I know some of the controversies. Now the article is an opinion piece, whom has written it? The autor: H. Sterling Burnett is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute.

The wikipedia article about them:

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans[2].[3]:233–34[4] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[8]

So consider the source before you quote something and consider what they try to accomplish with articles like these. Seems like the perfect Institute for Trump. Or do you agree with the stants they took given the examples on wiki?

RoySFlying wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Appropriating private property is a crime, whether you are charged or not. The ACT is criminal.

That would surely depend on what the law actually says and the legal definition of appropriation. I'm not an expert in Netherlands law but it is possible that entering a property is not regarded as appropriation. Certainly, the owners or tenants of the building have not been prevented from conducting business during the protest. The property still is in the legal possession of its owner despite what they would see as an inconveniet presence.

It is possible that an offence of trespass has been committed but again I am insufficiently knowledgable about law in the Netherlands. Here in Australia trespass is often a civil matter rather than a criminal one. But trespass can also become a criminal matter if the trespass involves destruction of property or continues in violation of a court order to vacate. Has either occurred in this instance?

No and no, no destruction and it was a short period and as I understand it, they occupied one conference room in order to engage in a dialogue.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The Amsterdam and Dutch Governments are complicit in the crime by not arresting and incarcerating the criminals.

Governments, their law enforcement agencies, are in no way required to arrest or incarcerate anyone for any crime whatsoever. Same way we don´t prosecute people for their own private drug cache.

This is the European continent, we don´t toss people into jail just because we have legal standing to do so. Aside of real crimes like rape, battering and such, you know, the stuff you can free yourself of if you can agree with the victim on payments in the US, like your president did with his first wife, we don´t prosecute until charges are pressed or significant public interests exists. On the plus side no money gets you off if public interest exists.
Punishment isn´t really a goal of the criminal justice system here, it is reducing crime, as opposed to breeding crime like your system. We also don´t arrest people just because we can, unless there is significant risk of fleeling the jurisdiction, destroying evidence or going and do the same crime right again, you are not tossed in a cell. "Innocent until proven guilty" means innocent until proven guilty, not waiting for trial in a cell while being technically innocent.

best regards
Thomas

No, no, no, Tommy, Innocent until proven guilty only applies to circumstances Mr. Bob says it applies to, he alone can determine that, no matter what the courts say, no matter what he said before that foreigners should have no opinion on doings in other countries, no matter what the rule of the land is. Haven't you learned anything from Mr. Bob? We are very fortunate to have such a great mind in our mitts.

As for tossing people in jail, well there are some controversies in the Netherlands about this. People have been arrested for just protesting, which isn't illegal and in those cases, the police are acting illegally and against the law.
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/studente-jo ... ~a508bed7/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/04/30/tw ... m-a1435154

And Bob will be against this action at the Van Gogh museum:

https://www.volkskrant.nl/beeldende-kun ... ~a4494710/

People got arrested, people have spent time in jail, all indictment were dropped. It is a matter of proportions, on one hand, the right of properties, on the other hand the right of free speaks. So in this case: they were arrested for spilling some drops of cane sugar on the floor. They drank some cane sugar solution from a
scallops (Shell logo) in order to protest that the Van Gogh museum is taking money from Shell and there with greenwashing Shell. I think that protest is proportional and ludic in order to get some media attention to the cause you are trying to make. Force the public to take a stand with this. And actually, the arrest will only help with the media attention so it only helps.

But I guess that Bob, if he lived in on 16 December 1773, would have condemned the entering a ship and actually destroying its content causing damage in the order of $1,5 to $ 2million. And we all know what it has lead to