As a JP (Ret.), I have been pondering over some recent decisions in UK courts.
Perverse verdicts have been given in finding a number of defendants 'not guilty' in cases where this verdict was neither possible, reasonable nor credible.
In the past, odd verdicts have occurred in extreme situations, where someone, acting with the best of intentions, has been cleared - but only because the Law was insufficiently written and this was to avoid an actual wrong being done to the defendant.
Stopping trains, blocking motorways and wild acts of vandalism simply cannot come under the criteria above.
Every perverse verdict must be overturned before this nonsense starts being adopted into case law. That way lies anarchy.
If there is a moral issue which is far greater than the Law of The Land, when Christians act to attack godless, immoral or manifestly bad law - then they must be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.
Causing distress to commuters on some vague 'climate change' philosophy will simply not do. The perpetrators of such acts are morally bound to plead guilty.
.jpeg)