The activists claimed that although their actions were technically unlawful - criminal damage - that climate change is even more criminally damaging to the country and so their actions were justified for the greater good. Apparently, the jury agreed with them:
Yes, I heard about that. Surely you don't see this as a
good thing??
"Well, sure, it was criminal, but, see, we're really really sure that there's this crisis, see, and so we think destroying other people's property is, y'know, okay."
Sorry, when "criminal damage" is okay against one unpopular industry, it's only a matter of time until it's okay against others. And the definition of "unpopular" changes over time. This is a horrible precedent.
PJ
