Judge Silas Reid prevented Insulate Britain defendants at the Inner London crown court from mentioning their motivation to commit non-violent “nuisance” (Insulate Britain activists found guilty over London roadblock, 13 February). How ironic and worrying that a court normally requiring “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is happy to forgo that luxury in certain cases.
Rev Steve Smith
Truro, Cornwall
• As someone arrested for sitting in Whitehall with Extinction Rebellion in October 2019, motivated by George Monbiot’s speech, I am outraged that, in the trial of Insulate Britain activists, Judge Silas Reid did not allow the jury to hear about their motivation because it wasn’t “relevant”. The climate crisis is relevant to all of us everywhere.
Laura Conyngham
Crediton, Devon
• Isn’t this just overt cancel culture – but in this case delivered to us by our own allegedly impartial judiciary? Regardless of the details of the “infractions”, surely activists should be allowed their day in court to explain their motivations? One is left wondering whom it is that directs the judiciary to such seemingly unfair practices.
Gary Bennett
Exeter
• Re the protesters found guilty of causing a public nuisance by blockading traffic, a couple of years ago, I had to walk most of the way home because Parliament Square was completely blocked by demonstrating taxi drivers. I asked a policeman standing by why police were doing nothing. He replied that it was because of “freedom of speech”. Why are taxi drivers different from climate activists?
Peter Howell
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
