Forum menu
Does the Overton Window affect Rule #1?
Given them heafty sentences I’m certainly going to think twice before an evening’s rioting.
Trouble is it doesn’t really achieve much,they will have to let out a load more prisoners early to squeeze this lot in and then there’s the on-going cost of keeping them there.
It’s too simple an answer to the problem, same as the the whole narrative of the ‘boats’ which has got us to here.
Makes sense to me. Just imagine if every rioter decided to use the defence of their ‘beliefs’ to justify torching a library? We all obviously think that their Tommy Robinson style ‘beliefs’ are nuts, but that doesn’t mean that they hold them in any less importance than Tarquin and Miranda hole their own ‘beliefs’ about climate change, does it?
I missed the bit where Tommy Robinson's beliefs were supported by in an international committee of scientific experts. But hey ho - you do you. Nice pussy.
you can be imprisoned if harm is caused to our democratic society
Which is why Rupert Murdoch is behind bars. Oh, hang on ...
We all obviously think that their Tommy Robinson style ‘beliefs’ are nuts, but that doesn’t mean that they hold them in any less importance than Tarquin and Miranda hole their own ‘beliefs’ about climate change, does it?
binners, may I suggest that, if you want to make these constant little digs at a group based upon them being (percieved as) mostly middle to upper-middle class, STW might not be the least awkward place to do so.
I don’t know where he got Tarqin and Miranda from
He's making up names that sound trustafarian, as that's what he thinks all environmental protestors are.
Just imagine if every rioter decided to use the defence of their ‘beliefs’ to justify torching a library?
Fundamentally that's the starting point for any rioter or protester isn't it?
Their belief that they are right and correct has overruled any notions about socially acceptable behaviour and perhaps even legality. The cause/belief is outside of the commonly accepted norms (overton window if you like) and the rioters find themselves at odds with society and the authorities.
Does the Overton Window affect Rule #1?
Other way round surely. In order to nudge the overton window one way or another you have to act outside of it, which, necessarily, means breaching rule one as a minimum.
I guess we do have to concede that JSO are doing that, pushing at some boundaries, breaking 'rule one' in order to shift the social narrative around climate change, the difference being their specific tactics, they're threatening people's ability to drive about in range rovers rather than threatening the lives of Brown people, Muslims and refugees (along with the dwindling number of public libraries)...
Our recent race riots were as much a backlash against the perceived loss of control the Right held (the Tory party had failed to cling on to power a month beforehand). Until SKS got in they could still see see a (watered down) version of their beliefs being implemented by the Tories and the sort of rhetoric they like. Loss of privilege often feels like oppression, etc, etc. This was the far right trying to create an early bit of unrest and forment a bit of a class war as a new front in the 'culture war'. I expect them to try similar things from here on, they'll be going increasingly "guerilla" with their tactics...
So yes those comparing JSO and SYL's mob are technically correct both are consciously operating outside of the rules, but as ever that sort of reductive assessment lacks the nuance of looking at either groups goals or tactics.
One lot literally want to save Humanity from itself, the other lot would rejoice if half of our species (the non-white half) died tomorrow... People are welcome to play the "yeah but what about..." game, and compare apples with sausages, but it does tend.to.make you look like a bit of a **** in the long run.
Something, something 'are we the baddies' meme, etc...
Meanwhile as the cannon fodder get chucked in the slammer........the general lights another cigar.
Time for a tune methinks:
Supergrass are behind the current wave of violence?
Supergrass are behind the current wave of violence?
Almost certainly.
He’s making up names that sound trustafarian, as that’s what he thinks all environmental protestors are.
Jokes work less well when you feel like you need to explain them...Besides which, in a thread of nearly 40 pages taking the piss out of the racist underclass, poking fun at the middle classes doing a bit of protesting before their horse riding lessons is at very the very least, not punching down.
Jokes work less well when you feel like you need to explain them…
TBF it was never working that well.
you've really got the hots for me. huh?
JSO keeps popping up as a comparison and it shouldn’t
Why not? Both plan and organise criminal damage and vandalism. Both refuse to follow reasonable requests from the police to disperse and let everyone else go about their legal business. Whether you support the view of one side, both sides , or neither doesn’t suddenly make them not comparable.
One lot literally want to save Humanity from itself, the other lot would rejoice if half of our species (the non-white half) died tomorrow
So it’s ok to act illegally and commit criminal acts if it’s something you support but not if it isn’t. That’s hardly democratic. I think that’s what North Korea and China specialise in. Is that what you would like to replicate. You have to detach thier beliefs from their criminal actions
Why not? Both plan and organise criminal damage and vandalism. Both refuse to follow reasonable requests from the police to disperse and let everyone else go about their legal business. Whether you support the view of one side, both sides , or neither doesn’t suddenly make them not comparable.
We can certainly compare blocking roads, to burning down buildings with people inside you consider are the wrong colour. Or pouring soup on sealed artworks, to smashing up the houses of innocent families.
It's not the concept of comparison that confuses me; its that you concluded these things are equally bad.
So it’s ok to act illegally and commit criminal acts if it’s something you support but not if it isn’t. That’s hardly democratic. I think that’s what North Korea and China specialise in. Is that what you would like to replicate. You have to detach thier beliefs from their criminal actions
It's democratic if these beliefs are presented to a jury for them to consider if they can be considered mitigating factors and if so, to what degree, which is what was being suggested above. I suspect that's not the procedure in North Korea, but I've no clue tbh.
I'm amused by the frequent appeals to "our democracy" as though it were some perfect path to justice and equality. Unfortunately it's largely a tool of the wealthy, for example the oil companies. If JSO could stuff our MPs' pockets with cash maybe they wouldn't need to block traffic.
JSO keeps popping up as a comparison and it shouldn’t
Why not? Both plan and organise criminal damage and vandalism. Both refuse to follow reasonable requests from the police to disperse and let everyone else go about their legal business. Whether you support the view of one side, both sides , or neither doesn’t suddenly make them not comparable.
* No animals were hurt in the making of this production
So it’s ok to act illegally and commit criminal acts if it’s something you support but not if it isn’t. That’s hardly democratic. I think that’s what North Korea and China specialise in. Is that what you would like to replicate. You have to detach thier beliefs from their criminal actions
Who said it was OK to break laws?
If anything I was accepting the comparison, both groups have committed offences. But you have to acknowledge their motives are quite a long way apart, and the actual harms JSO seem willing to inflict are mostly material rather than looking to kill or injure strangers.
If it helps you to think of JSO as being in the same league as NF and burning building and attacking whole communities as equivalent to chaining yourself across a road for an afternoon fine, clearly one of us has things out of proportion.
If you want to see it as some sort of class thing, also fine. We can't really deny that class and social stratification is a very British obsession, as for "punching down" there's plenty of that going on. I can't deny environmentalism does seem to be the sort of thing some middle class people have more time and disposable income to dabble with, I still can't quite fathom why some less well off white people feel the need to "punch down" on asylum seekers though, other than because some wealthier bastards with newspapers/websites/SM followings told them to and tried not to dirty their hands...
To me the tacit endorsement of the race riots that came from wealthy Right wingers (wherever they might be living) was all part of their "Bread an circuses" act.
They've happily ****ed the rioting demographic over for more than a decade, gotten wealthy doing it, and kept succeeding because of misdirection and making sure that there's always someone else to blame, ideally a minority with no substantial voice or resources to counter the propaganda, but enough cultural/ethnic difference to make them stand out.
Who said it was OK to break laws?
Many many people contributing to this thread coming up with alsorts of spurious arguments as to why it’s ok do re jso to commit criminal damage and vandalise works of art and sports events. Many seem the accept that because they agree with thier cause it’s all fine and that should be enough to have thier trials abandoned
Many many people contributing to this thread coming up with alsorts of spurious arguments as to why it’s ok do
Fr’instance ?
Many many people contributing to this thread coming up with alsorts of spurious arguments as to why it’s ok do re jso to commit criminal damage and vandalise works of art and sports events.
Are you sure? I have to confess not following this thread very closely but I got the impression that the main gripe was over the punishment meted out to JSO being too severe, rather than it was okay to cause criminal damage. I guess that I would probably fall into the category.
Also some people seem to be suggesting that there isn't much difference between the criminality of JSO and the criminality of the EDL so that they can expect similar punishments. Which is a bizarre belief imo.
Many many people contributing to this thread coming up with alsorts of spurious arguments as to why it’s ok do re jso to commit criminal damage and vandalise works of art and sports events. Many seem the accept that because they agree with thier cause it’s all fine and that should be enough to have thier trials abandoned
As above, I don't think anyone's been arguing in favour of JSO's actions, more commenting that they see the JSO sentencing as disproportionate compared to the recent spate of violet fascists taking to the streets.
Are you saying that JSO should receive the same sort of sentences for chucking cornflour at some Rocks as the EDL/NF should for their own recent activities?
Lots of folk on this thread making stuff up...
Their belief that they are right and correct has overruled any notions about socially acceptable behaviour and perhaps even legality. The cause/belief is outside of the commonly accepted norms
Sounds like a spurious reason to me.
One lot literally want to save Humanity from itself,
another spurious justification for criminal damage.
That’s just on this page
Those are not examples of anyone justifying committing criminal damage.
Just a couple of suggestions of what motives JSO
Just a couple of suggestions of what motives JSO
And some selective editing out of my speculation on the motives of the EDL/NF lot.
That wasn't me providing justification for anything, just noting that anyone who riots or protests has by definition decided to behave outside of socially accepted norms... More a statement of fact than any sort of justifications.
Back to the point on proportionate sentencing, it's notable that about 100 years ago some jumped up dickhead stood on a table fired, a gun in the air and made an apparently rousing speech in the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall. The coup that he was attempting to whip up that night ultimately failed, but many of the same key ingredients were there, booze of course, a disaffected populace, a scapegoated minority and far right ghouls, grifters and money men waiting in the wings.
Despite being found guilty of treason he only got 5 years, of which he served just 1, just enough time to consolidate his ideas into mein kampf. 2 decades later the same angry tosser was plunging a continent into war and conducting industrial scale genocide...
Given the historical precedent, just how lenient should we be with rioting Fascists and the people that incite them?
another spurious justification for criminal damage.
Where does it say that?
Yep, nobody is justify JSO and their activities. Yes the cause is clearly a major concern for the whole world and it would be good if everyone believed that but the stupid stuff they get up to just looks like stupid stuff to most people (me included) and doesn't do a thing to help the cause. Yes they get headlines but no the right headlines and I don't believe anteing they have done has made a bit of difference in peoples minds and definitely not in any governments or businesses.
As for sentencing, that is tricky as causing mass disruption to a million or so people is not great for one reason and terrorising muslim people is also not great for another reason.
I also would not put most of them in prison (first time or minimal previous convictions) I would setup something along the lines of a de radicalisation process where they go in believing all sorts of shit and come out not believing all sorts of shit and actually understanding/comprehending/appreciating different races and religions. May give them a better chance in future than being in prison for a few years which could just make it worse.
and the actual harms JSO seem willing to inflict are mostly material rather than looking to kill or injure strangers.
I'm not so sure that's true. Hallam was on bail for trying to fly drones into Heathrow at the time of his trial, I don't think you can do that without accepting that your plan may involve killing people, even indirectly.
jso to commit criminal damage and vandalize works of art and sports events.
I'm not sure any actual damage was caused. They used water soluble paint, that easily washes off, or powder that can be hoovered up.
All it really comes down to is disruption. Someone has to clean up the paint with a pressure washer, so it goes harmlessly down a drain, or operate a hoover.
I suppose you could even look at it that it gives a cleaner some overtime, and is good for hoover bag and other manufacturers.
"Right, nip down the hire shop and hire us a pressure washer". Thats sort of good for the hire company.
.
JSO - Keeping people in a job and promoting industry 😀
Or how about all the people who slept in for work, and phoned the boss saying, sorry, Just Stop Oil have blocked the road as a very viable excuse.
I’m not sure any actual damage was caused
Yes it has been. The frame on the work of art has been damaged. The painting is ok because of the screen.
The damage to planes at the stanstead stunt is estimated to cost £50k to fix
Then there is stonehenge
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonehenge-just-stop-oil-protest-paint-jso-b2565295.html
that’s just 3 examples in recent weeks
But that is concentrating on the criminal damage aspect which as we know the riots have also done a lot of. So removing that bit how does the impact of terrorism vs mass disruption compare? Answer = it doesn't.
I know. That’s because criminal damage was the piont I was making. The comments were that jso weren’t committing criminal damage and I was giving example that show they are. Both groups are committing criminal damage and should be treated the same. I agree the rioters are also committing more serious crimes as well which should be treated according
This is the consequence of far-right rioting, which of course was the intention of the far-right rioters :
Some 75% said they were very worried about their safety now, compared with 16% before the riots earlier this month that were sparked by misinformation in the wake of the Southport knife attack.
I know for myself from the local Muslim dominated WhatsApp groups that I am on that at the height of the rioting Muslim women were particularly fearful as they are easy to identify and target. And these were women living in reasonably safe London, far away from the far-right riots.
From the above link:
"What's really worrying me is when women are calling up saying: 'We were abused, and we were with our children'."
So. How does that compare with the actions of JSO? Are 75% of motorists now very worried about their safety because of the actions of JSO?
The idea that both JSO and far-right rioters deserve similar sentences because of similar levels of criminality is clearly absurd.
I agree the rioters are also committing more serious crimes as well which should be treated Accordingly
Also: none of the rioters had blue hair or wore dungarees. Both these factors are well known to carry an additional premium when judges are considering sentencing
Whatever the sentences handed out don't lose sight of the fact JSO are on the right side of history. In the not too distant future they'll be seen in the same way as Rosa Parks refusing to give up a bus seat, raised fists at an Olympics, my great aunt suffragette writing "votes for women" on an Mp's wall, De Gaule's call from London... and all the other defiant gestures that were on the side of right and good.
fact JSO are on the right side of history. In the not too distant future they’ll be seen in the same way as Rosa Parks refusing to give up a bus seat, raised fists at an Olympics, my great aunt suffragett
Thats hilarious. There is no chance of jso been seen as anything but vandals. Climate change will be resolved by serious scientists convincing government to take action. Not by a bunch of hypocritical protestors
Climate change will be resolved by serious scientists convincing government to take action.
On what basis are you making this claim? I ask because climate scientists have been saying the same thing for the last forty years.
Climate change will be resolved by serious scientists convincing government to take action.
How are these serious scientists going to do that........by staging protests?
I am impressed you believe that "climate change will be resolved", btw, what is that impressive level of optimism based on? Currently it is an ongoing and quickly deteriorating situation.
The climate scientists have convinced governments they need to take action but the instant governements do they have a mini-revolution on their hands. The French gilet jaune protests started with a woman starting the movement to protest about eco-taxes on diesel and the gilet jaune tract I got was very specifically anti-EV, anti-wind power and pro cheap diesel, petrol and gas. The problem isn't the heads of state, it's the people. In particular the vocal climate sceptics on social media such as STW where only very recently have the wilfully ignorant gone quiet(er).
The politicians know where we're headed but that doing anything about it is political suicide. Check out Labour party promises and then compare it with what they actually do. Theresa May promised "net-zero" by when was it?2050. What did she do to achieve that? Nothing.
Stopping oil isn't going to happen not because of what the government decides or does, it's because of what you me and everyone else decides and does. It's only when billions of people take personal responsability that anything significant will change. For that the existential threat will have to be real to them, and by then it will be to late.