Peter Rhodes on fed-up royals, good news from the Appeal Court and an encounter with a mercenary
The Court of Appeal has removed a defence much loved by eco-vandals. The so-called “consent defence,” stated that, if the defendants honestly believed that the owner of the damaged property would have consented to the damage if they had known “of the damage and its circumstance,” the accused should not be convicted. Confusing, isn't it?
So imagine the following conversation between an art gallery owner and an activist with a sharp knife:
Owner: “Hang on, you're ripping my Rembrandt to shreds. I am furious.
Activist: Ah, yes, but if you understood the circumstances, my motivation and the very real danger of climate catastrophe, you would thoroughly approve of my actions.”
