Climate Change

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

Eco-vandals take on the gas-guzzlers

Spate of attacks on 4x4 vehicles in Manchester

By James Mann

20 vehicles have been targeted in the last week by the gang

AP

20 vehicles have been targeted in the last week by the gang

Police are searching for a gang of radical environmental activists after a series of attacks on 4x4 vehicles.

The gang, who claim to have targeted up to 80 vehicles across South Manchester, let down tyres and leave notes accusing the owners of adding to global warming and increasing the chances of road deaths.

In the last week tyres on 20 vehicles were slashed or deflated in the Ladybarn and Withington of the city. This follows similar attacks on 11 cars last month. Police classify the deliberate acts as criminal damage.

A statement from the activists said tyres were deflated rather than slashed. It added: "Given the threat of climate change and the Government's inaction, direct action such as this is, unfortunately, necessary. Large SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) emit substantially more greenhouse gases."

The statement also said accident victims were six times more likely to die if hit by an SUV rather than a smaller car.

Owners of SUVs – dubbed Chelsea tractors – have been branded irresponsible by environmentalists, for their vehicles' size and fuel consumption. Critics say the large four-wheel drive vehicles were originally intended for use by farmers on rough terrain in the countryside. But they have become popular with middle-class families living in cities and are used for school runs and shopping trips.

Patricia and Waris Ashraf had a tyre let down on their Mercedes ML outside their house in Whalley Range, making their daughter Natasha, 16, late for an A-level exam. A victim from Chorlton, who would not be named, said: "What concerns me most is that we have a child seat in the back of the car. They must have seen that, which suggests they don't care who they affect."

Doug McMillan, whose tyres were attacked in Parrs Wood, Didsbury, last week, said: "If they ever did have a noble, credible cause, they have blown it because they have reduced themselves to the status of common criminals. They are vandals, nothing else."

A member of the group calling himself James said: "These vehicles are totally unsuitable for the city, they're dangerous, polluting and an unnecessary status symbol. They should not be on our city roads."

Detective Inspector Damian Moran, from Greater Manchester Police, said: "Those responsible might believe they are making a point, but this behaviour is criminal.

"It is mindless vandalism with no regard for the distress and nuisance caused to decent members of our community and will not be tolerated.

"If anyone knows anything or has seen anything suspicious during those two nights that might help us catch those responsible, please contact me."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
petrol-vandals
[info]pheel09 wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 03:50 am (UTC)
no doubt, in the not too distant future, when we are all toasting under an increasingly hot sun, with a decreasing land mass, the use of these types of vehicles will be seen as criminal behaviour...
shame we have to wait for millions to suffer and die to get a few egotistical "legally abiding citizens" to understand that they are destroying the environment that belongs to everyone on the planet
Re: petrol-vandals
[info]visiona4thought wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 04:20 am (UTC)
While seeking an alternative to carbon fuels will be of great benefit, I hate to break it to you, but our actions down here do not effect the heat of the sun! ;)

In addition, someone recently pointed out to me that larger vehicles are often used to collect / drop off more than one child, reducing the number of cars on the road. Of course, one doesn't need a 4x4 to collect several children, but I'm just making a point.

Truth is, we just need to get away from burning fossil fuels in full - wasting time on attacking 4x4s is spitting in the wind - really.
Re: petrol-vandals - [info]antonmorris - Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC) Expand
Re: petrol-vandals - [info]mohammedal - Monday, 25 May 2009 at 09:37 pm (UTC) Expand
avraam jack
[info]avraamjack wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 04:33 am (UTC)
Get a Mercedes Sprinter - people assume you need one if you have one.

Far bigger than those puny pathetic "SUVs".

.
Chelsea Tractors
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 05:24 am (UTC)
These vehicles represent the far end of Ayn Rand's 'autonomous individualism'.

They make a social Darwinian statement; and they intimidate other road users, in particlular pedestrians.

If you have a large family, 'people carriers' are just as adequate, and rather more social.

This class of vehicle should receive a punitive road tax, and not the current joke - which is indicative of New Labour's tokenistic attitude to climate change.

BTW, I notice it is OK for the police to make criminal attacks on climate protesters.
Re: Chelsea Tractors
[info]georgesign wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 07:17 am (UTC)
Why are you intimidated? Are you frightened of a bus or a van? Why is it necessary for some people to force their opinions on others? Better to be an individual with their own mind than to be whipped-up into mass hysteria by others with their dubious agenda of humans causing global warming. When you try to ban someone from doing things you dislike then beware one day the same will happen to you.
I do not care for larger and larger road vehicles of all types but I wouldn't seek to ban them. Long live Howard Roark.
Re: Chelsea Tractors - [info]msdimple - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC) Expand
Eco warrior jihad
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 10:24 am (UTC)
These so called eco warriors are actually religious zealots, and like all fanatical religions, believe they have the right to impose their doctrine on the rest of the population. Recently they attempted to close down a power station, which could have had dire consequences and caused death and injury to many. A white middle class terrorist is just as much a terrorist as a Islamic one. These people should be dealt with under the terrorism act, and locked up before they can do real harm.
Middle Class Priorities
[info]wickerman69 wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
These SUVs are unecessary. What really depresses me about this activism is the response from the affluent victims of the crime. - Oh no Natasha was late for an A level exma and they must have seen the child seat in the back, they do not care who they effect.
Sorry SUV drivers we all share this planet - you need to get clear on what are the essentials.
Eco warriors
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 03:04 pm (UTC)
Reply to twb103. I received your reply before it was deleted, and did not find it as offensive as Live Journal seemed to think it was. I am neither of those things. I personally own a small economical car, so I have no axe to grind here. I would also agree that large gas guzzling 4x4s should not be used as city cars. But I draw the line at vandalising people's cars. That is a criminal act and should be treated as such. I certainly consider that closing down a power station is an act of terrorism. For anyone who thinks that is a reasonable protest, do you actually realise the consequences of that? A sudden shutdown would cause a large voltage drop in the supply lines. There are cutouts in place to cut off the supply completely to avoid burnout of generators in other power stations, which would otherwise try to compensate and overload. The result would be a sudden blackout of a large area. Just imagine the hospitals and other services having to cope with that, and the road accidents that could result from the sudden switch off of traffic lights and street lighting.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof that the emissions from large cars has any effect on climate. It is just a belief that these eco-warriors have, which bears a close resemblance to religious beliefs in my opinion.
Clive Sinclair was just too ahead of time
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC)

Mr Sinclair come back all is forgiven! How we all laughed at the C5 in the 1980's

The C5 should be re-launched as the C55, with extra protection and looking more like a conventional car, may still a single seater or a two seater.

New cars have to be very light but still able to protect the occupants. Need some lateral thinking. The heavier the car, the less economical.

To carry a 85Kg human, at present takes a 1300Kg Focus (never mind a 2500Kg SUV). Does not compute. too much dead weight being lugged around - very inefficient.
Re: Clive Sinclair was just too ahead of time
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 04:02 pm (UTC)
The C5 is now a collector's item. I believe there are several small electric cars on the market already. but people don't seem too keen to buy them. That may be partly because they feel vulnerable in such small cars. The reason given by women who use large 4x4s for the school run, is that they feel their children are safer in them. Electric vehicles have an issue with charging and range. As a one time milkman, I know only too well the drawbacks of electric vehicles. Try waiting half an hour in sub zero temperatures for a tow, with no heater, and you will soon see what I mean. How about a small 2 seater lightweight, but strong, petrol driven car. Now that's a Smart idea.
Just a bunch of commie students
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 05:40 pm (UTC)
When I lived in that part of Manchester there were always bands of commie students whingeing on about the communist revolution, talking politically correct bollocks and calling people fascists for not agreeing with them. Ten gets you twenty most of those "revolutionary socialist workers" are the ones driving those cars now they have left the loony left behind and embraced the benefits of capitalism - a big house and car and food on the table is far better than living in a hovel and bowing down to a British equivalent of Castro or Mao. The "eco-vandals" as you quaintly describe them are tomorrow's Range Rover owners, don't forget that...
The Eco Idiots are at it again. Who's paying them?
[info]collin_brown wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 06:44 pm (UTC)
Link (1). http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

Link (2). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI

I could go on and on. Climate change is a TAX / scam.

Without C02 we'd freeze to death you idiots.
Re: The Eco Idiots are at it again. Who's paying them?
[info]oric108 wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 06:58 pm (UTC)
There are, basically a large amounts of silly egoising pricks around, especially I think, in the 'western' sphere, who really do need to wake up a bit and realise that they are not immune from living on a incredibly complex and yet simple living system called Mother Earth. In other words HAVE SOME RESPECT.
Re: The Eco Idiots are at it again. Who's paying them? - [info]uanime5 - Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Eco Idiots are at it again. Who's paying them? - [info]rwthplb - Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Eco Idiots are at it again. Who's paying them? - [info]rwthplb - Monday, 25 May 2009 at 05:22 am (UTC) Expand
Criminal vandalism of my air.
[info]imogenlucy wrote:
Saturday, 23 May 2009 at 06:58 pm (UTC)

Those who pollute other people's air are criminals and vandals of a far more dangerous type, so while letting their tyres down is far from ideal, while the government continues with its pathetic inaction on the environment it seems reasonable for citizens to act in self-defence against the polluters.
haha
[info]world_ends2012 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 07:36 am (UTC)
I will continue to enjoy driving my 6.1 litre V12 which manages a pathetic 10-12mpg when i floor it, which i do quite regularly. I can actually see the fuel gauge needle falling as i do..


Good times..
Re: haha
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 06:24 pm (UTC)

Let the good times roll...

But there is a price to paid for this fun. North sea reserves are running dry. This means it's necessary to send British soldiers to fight in Middle East conflicts to ensure that any new government is Western friendly.

When your V12 gets old, I suggest you scrap it or mothball it if its collectable. Then get yourself a more responsible car. As someone who has a few AMG V8's, V12's and other V8's I can fully understand your need for speed.

You need to think about going green - it will give you a good feeling. I suggest you take a look at something like the A8 4.2 TDi - approaching supercar performance but will go a long way between refills :-)

I dont think you will be happy with performance electric cars of today? Except perhaps a Tesla?
a harmless prank
[info]leonore35 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 07:44 am (UTC)
Inconvenient but letting down tyres is a mild protest no actual damage was done, unlike smashing screens or scratching paint, or worse using stripper
If your daughter is late for an exam call a taxi I am sure you can afford it!
i don't need this
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
i dont need this - how sad can anyone get about a bloody child killing tin box on big wheelsr so that they can't get to their a-level exam without one?!
mountain? molehill?
[info]teestee wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
20 slashed-up cars, and Trixie misses school?
Get a sense of perspective.

Anyway, moving on.
Slash and burn
[info]mike2020 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
The day is not far off when unnecessary use of a SUV will be seen as an anti-social act. They are not only gas-guzzlers and dangerous, but the city people who drive them need inadequacy counselling. What possible reason is there to drive one other than their size, a personality complex and a superfluity of readies?
mindless
[info]fuzz_box wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
The ownership and use of these vehicles in towns and cities is vandalism.
Re: mindless
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 05:43 pm (UTC)
What a silly thing to say. Are you quoting Karl Marx or Chairman Mao here?
Mindless Police
[info]simonji wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC)
"It is mindless vandalism..." - DI Moran
He is obviously attacking criticising the 4x4 owners.
4 x 4 attacks
[info]triclinium1 wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
I wouldn't have the guts to vandalise these surburban behemoths, but I don't have a problem with what has been done. The carbon cost of building these monsters (Landcruisers, Porsche Cayenne, VW Tuareg, Range Rovers etc.) has to be taken into account as well as their gas guzzling tendencies. Moreover, they are dangerous to other road users and pedestrians. In Surrey where I live there seem to be far more women 4 x 4 drivers than men. They clearly feel safer and that they are keeping little India and Toby safe, and sod the rest of us. There is no need for these vehicles in suburbia - they are vanity purchases. I would have them all crushed, with the exception of those who genuinely need them (farmers etc).
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
I think you have two problems -

The first is that you seem to be unable to read and comprehend 'english' as she is spoken. You make much of you r qualifications - assumably to bolster some part of your argument. What are they and where do you lecture (?) - a simple question with a simple and assumably verifiable answer.

If you have any sort of scientific training I assume you have some experience of tracking and validating references. Regrettably I do not see it here. Your numbers just don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Whie I have problems with the extreme 'climate change' lobby (pro), I also have as many issues with idiots like you who don't read properly and don't really understand what they do read.....
4x4 => car for brainwashed sheeps
[info]kebabacool wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 06:13 pm (UTC)
"If they ever did have a noble, credible cause..." but what is a noble/credible cause if trying to defend the environment isn't one ?? Doug McMillan apparently didn't think very well before speaking. And because no one takes any action to go greener, something needs to be done. Polluting for some fashion reason IS a crime and IS vandalism.
Damian Moran needs to understand that those who attacked the tyres of those cars are making a point, even if this behaviour is criminal. Maybe it is, but from a moral point of view, polluting by driving a 4x4 is criminal and doing nothing against it is criminal. It's pointless to use those big words like crime and vandalism because people who attack those cars know what they do, they are not stupid.
"It is mindless vandalism with no regard for the distress and nuisance caused to decent members of our community". But.... Wait a minute..... Since when owning a 4x4 make someone a decent member of our community ?? It is the opposite !!!!! Owning and using a 4x4 make someone NOT decent !! It shows how people have been brain washed and how selfish they are !!!!! Those people don't care about the fact that they are emitting more CO2 !! It is as simple as that : you drive a 4x4, you pollute unnecessarily much more just to show your status or show off. It is stupid, it is selfish, it is dangerous.
"What concerns me most is that we have a child seat in the back of the car. They must have seen that, which suggests they don't care who they affect." Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah !!!!!!! So if you have a baby seat, therefore if you have a child, well, it means that you should be protected from everything....... Because having a child is like being disabled, you should have priority and protection..... Mmhmhmmhmhmm....
What's wrong with those people ?? Why having a child should give you more advantages ?? I can already see the answer : "if the child fall sick, we have to rush to the hospital !!". Well, ok, but if an adult fall sick, do we not need to rush him to the hospital ??
In a city, 4x4 are bad and should be banned. People driving them should be named and shamed.
Children
[info]matchstick01 wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 06:25 pm (UTC)
Whilst I do not support this kind of direct action, they do have a point. 4x4 SUVs are totally unnecessary outside of a farming environment and, as is pointed out above, are an unsafe addition to our roads.
For the woman who made the following comment in the article:

"What concerns me most is that we have a child seat in the back of the car. They must have seen that, which suggests they don't care who they affect."

I would ask how is it that your child is so much more important that the others in the world that will be affected by your lack of responsible action. More than suggesting you do not care who you affect, it is a certainty you do not care who you affect.

The sooner emissions regulations are introduced that remove all large engined cars from the road, the better.
Re: Children
[info]mohammedal wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 09:40 pm (UTC)
Yawn.

More hysterical nonsense from someone who can no doubt not afford to run a car.

You stick to your bus mate, and leave the driving to the grown ups.
Re: Children - [info]kebabacool - Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC) Expand
Simply Envy
[info]mohammedal wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 09:36 pm (UTC)
Surely this is more likely to be jealousy from an unemployed person.

It is only a matter of time before the owner of a 4x4 catches some in the act, and does something about it.

Sadly though in the UK, it will be the owner of the vehicle that will be prosecuted rather than the waste of space, that is the down and out who caused damage to the vehicle.
Re: Simply Envy
[info]earthtrial58 wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 11:39 pm (UTC)
mohammedal

hey sonny. If you think people are angry about the trivia of bankers and MPs, see if it's possible for you to imagine if you can with how much venom the public have for you and your toilet on wheels. I sincerely hope you receive everything that is due to you.
Re: Simply Envy - [info]kebabacool - Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:02 am (UTC) Expand
Who Drives Four Wheel Drives?
[info]phdpsy wrote:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
what of resource shortages?
[info]rahreh wrote:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:39 am (UTC)
i see many comments here relating to the climate change argument. this is the source of the vandals' ire. what about the petroleum resources these vehicles suck up compared to more-efficient vehicles? the north sea reserves are in decline, which means that the UK's on the same path as the US: declining reserves leading to massive need for imported oil and natural gas. considering the last 100 years, that only means more resource wars -- possibly economic but likely military -- which will call on future generations to kill or be killed.

i can understand the woman's irritation that the vandals wouldn't consider her child's car seat in the back. it was a great inconvenience. but there are too many parents who don't recognize that their cumulative choices in family transportation are threatening future generations far more than a flat tire. i call that willful ignorance beyond unconscionable.
SMALL BRAINS
[info]nonviolent_one wrote:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
They did it because it was easier than thinking of a way to cut down on the ways that they themselves pollute......they probably celebrated by drinking some water out of plastic bottles after the incident.....for shame.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date