Is he the new Jambalaya to @grimep ‘s Teamhurtmore?
Nah, Jamby had a bit of humour to him,iirc and despite the jambafacts he wasn’t really a tool like some of the trolls seem to be aiming for nowadays.
Maybe this is the new Ninfan
people have gone to prison for murder/rape etc for less time than he has. crazy sentence!
Apparently the jails are too full to send rapists and murders down
If it was from anyone else binners I would assume that it was a Daily Mail type having a pop at Starmer and his leftie soft on crime attitude.
But since it's from you I don't know what to make of it. Apart from the glaringly obvious fact that it's bollocks.
Maybe this is the new Ninfan
Nah, imo labrat was more subtle. And he knew how to set traps for people, before striking.
I agree that Jambalaya might have been an over enthusiastic right-winger but he never struck me as actually being nasty and with no sense of humour.
a reasonable number of normal people who had their holiday plans thoroughly messed up that day
A five year sentence. For that?!? And for “winding a judge up”!?!
But since it’s from you I don’t know what to make of it. Apart from the glaringly obvious fact that it’s bollocks
It’s entirely possible I wasn’t being serious about any part of my answer Ernesto
I was deadly serious about jailing all white trustafarians with dreadlocks though, on general principle. You can throw away the key as far as I’m concerned. And if that makes me a hairist, so be it!
Ah, it's been a while since anyone has claimed the Edinburgh defence.
Forgive me, I missed the punchline of your joke
I'm no fan of JSO and think their methods have turned a lot of people you need on side against the environmental movement.
Five years though, Jeezus ****ing H Christ that's disproportionate to say the least. It's an old fashioned do as you're ****ing told or else, make an example to show the rest of them!
5 years for conspiring to hold up traffic??
Scary
Aye, some of those blinkin roadies should be worried about their disorderly chain gangs .
Reading that BBC news article about the trial it almost sounds like he went out of his way to maximise his sentence. Maybe that was the purpose of all those theatrics, I don't know.
if that makes me a hairist, so be it!
You're only jealous.
Number one item on the King's Speech should have been repealing the 2023 Public Order Act. The fact it wasn't makes me believe labour are part of the same corrupt oligarchy the Tories are.
Oh and if this issue wasn't so important I'd say don't give IRC the oxygen of clicks.
Blimey, has this already been posted?....... the judge who sent them to jail is the same judge who refused to jail a rapist. The rapist was eventually jailed by the Court of Appeal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c880xjx54mpo
In twenty or thirty years we’ll look back on the Extinction Rebellion people as martyrs in the same way we look at the Suffragettes. They’re not out there protesting for the sake of it, but for your kids future.
Before then I think there'll be some serious eco-terrorism aimed at scaring people into changing the way we live - beyond just going on holiday. As disproportionate as it certainly is, I suspect the sentencing is aimed at sending a signal to the people that might consider much more significant disruption.
simply so that you may parade your views
"Views". Or scientifically proven that the planet is being destroyed putting the security and wellbeing of future generations in jeopardy. Exactly as @theflyingox says, if people don't like this level of disruption just wait till things really start breaking down (remember the "empty shelves" of COVID?)
The stop oil guy deserves it. Its not peaceful protesting when its causing massive disruption to everyday people. People that need to get to work to earn money, people that need to get to appointments etc.
The term "peaceful protest" refers to the fact that no violence occurred, i.e. it wasn't a violent protest
5 years for conspiring to hold up traffic??
I think if you don't want to get a long sentence, then don't piss the judge off? They were expressly forbidden by the judge to talk about climate change. In these sorts of cases, that's not uncommon for there to be restrictions on this sort of evidence (mostly a time thing) but this judge took a pretty hard line on it. The defendants were understandably un-happy about that as they reckoned it was central to why they did what they did, but then tried to both talk about it on the stand - a couple of them were arrested becasue they wouldn't shut up and/or leave the stand when directed to, and a protest outside the court about it was started by supporters, who were arrested for trying to influence a jury during a case. earning them and the 4 defendants some contempt of court charges on top of the other charges they were already facing.
Now you might agree with the protestors about their right to give evidence, I think the judge was harsh and there's probs grounds for appeal, but once you get to a court it's pretty much the Judges World and you piss abut at your own peril, you can make some legal representation about these sorts of decisions, but some of the defendants decided to defend themselves, and while the judge gave them some latitude (as they're not trained lawyers) horsing about in any court is probably not going to do you any favours.
Upshot: Harsh sentences from a Judge who probably pushed the boundaries a bit far, faced with defendants who were not going to play by the rules. FAFO applies here I think.
The disruption caused had a massive impact on everyday lives. The protesters were not violent but there were plenty of cases of ambulances not being able to get through. The physical and mental impact cant go ignoored. Hopefully after the 5 year sentence he might reconsider where he holds his protests. Just let peiple get on with their lives.
When is the right time to switch from peaceful protest to direct action? JSO believe (for the sake of all of us) that time is now.
Suffragettes made the switch in c1910 and in 1928 achieved their objective. The ANC made the switch around 1950 and in the early 1990's Apartheid was ended.
Maybe in in few decades we will look and see how silly we have been.
If I drive slowly, someone takes a recklessly impatient overtake and crashes, did I cause an accident?
You might've done, If you drive slowly enough you'll get pulled by the cops, and you might either get warned or [if it's on a m-way for instance] you might get done for dangerous driving. I think HWC 114 applies.
Edit; apologies HWC 144
The disruption caused had a massive impact on everyday lives.
Not nearly as much as climate change will. Lots of what look like complete disasters are only temporary in nature even if that time is 100years. The problem with climate change is it looks catastrophic in terms of human life and our ability to ever come back.
Just let peiple get on with their lives
Tell me you don't understand the causes of climate change without telling me you don't understand the causes of climate change.
People can't just get on with their lives. Sitting on the M25 every day in a car has to stop - people need to start living closer to where they work, working from home and using sustainable alternatives (bikes, trains, their feet). Governments need to enable these changes and introduce better policies to reduce our impact on the climate.
Despite big protests like this which are peaceful but impactful, Labour still barely mentioned climate change in their manifesto. The protests have to get bigger and more dramatic before the impacts of climate change do (and I guarantee those impacts will stop you going about your life for more than an afternoon) so government and the public take notice.
there were plenty of cases of ambulances not being able to get through.
I've heard this before but never been shown any evidence of the scale and seriousness of the problem.
I'm not a fan of JSOs tactics as I believe they are currently counter productive in terms of attracting support, and the attitude of its leaders doesn't help. The comparison with suffragettes is very valid, some form of action needs to be taken.
And, of course, while it's fine to lock up people engaged in peaceful protest when it affects us, it will be less fun when we are being sentenced to 5 years for peacefully protesting something we care passionately about. It's the principle of the over reach that's the issue rather than the specifics.
it will be less fun when we are being sentenced to 5 years for peacefully protesting
This particular group aren't getting five years for protesting, they're getting five years [in part] for arsing about in court. Given they can appeal, are likely to spend about two years inside, I think right now given the press and sympathy this is receiving, they've probably come to the conclusion it was worth it.
Didnt say i dont get climate change. Of cause it will be devistating if nothings done. But the protesters are targeting the wrong people and just angering the public.
Despite big protests like this which are peaceful but impactful, Labour still barely mentioned climate change in their manifesto.
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
"The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face. The clean energy transition represents a huge opportunity to generate growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis and make Britain energy independent once again. That is why clean energy by 2030 is Labour’s second mission."
https://labour.org.uk/change/make-britain-a-clean-energy-superpower/
there were plenty of cases of ambulances not being able to get through.
Provide one.
nobody will be able to go on holiday
What a ridiculous thing to say......rich people will, obvs.
Another headache landing in Starmer and Coopers in trays. Clearly the sentences are unjust. Hopefully an appeal will do the trick
Another headache landing in Starmer and Coopers in trays. Clearly the sentences are unjust. Hopefully an appeal will do the trick
Why is that, you do know the executive and the judiciary are separate branches of the government, and are for a very good reason.
The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face. The clean energy transition represents a huge opportunity to generate growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis and make Britain energy independent once again. That is why clean energy by 2030 is Labour’s second mission.”
That and 8.3bn still qualifies as barely especially given what GB energy actually is.
As said before it's absolutely nowhere near enough or on point. And given Labour's ability to withdraw anything - I will believe it when I see it
Really, the legal team for Labour on here have to make a distinction between fluff and actually improving material conditions.
Another headache landing in Starmer and Coopers in trays
Hardly, given how independent the judicial system is from the political system, I should imagine it won't trouble them much at all, beyond the blandest of vanilla statements
"barely mentioned climate change in their manifesto" was the claim... but it was front and centre of the manifesto and couldn't be missed by anyone even glancing at it... that their response and methods do not match you particular single minded political focus is neither here no there.
The biggest change in UK policy towards oil and gas was prompted at the ballot box earlier this month. I'm unsure whether the acts of protest have helped or hindered, accelerated or delayed, the necessary steps we need to take towards dropping fossil fuel use... but whether genius or misguided folly, the protests should not be resulting in these sentences.
there were plenty of cases of ambulances not being able to get through.
Provide one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyAGOPiino
In twenty or thirty years we’ll look back on the Extinction Rebellion people as martyrs in the same way we look at the Suffragettes. They’re not out there protesting for the sake of it, but for your kids future.
Their way of going about it may not always be the most appropriate, but the message sure is.
Where's the like button when you need it.
irc - I wonder if in 20 years time (if you are still alive - I suspect you are of an age so this might not be a given) you might cringe at your thread title and opinions. I don't know if you have grand kids, but I fear they might cringe even if you don't. And it's their world long term. Anyway, well done you for wishing a non violent protester, campaigning for your grand kids to have a more hopeful future, incarceration.
Roger Hallam, the guy with the longest sentence; I'm glad he says he's moved on in terms of protesting methodology. Not because I think what he did was morally wrong, but because we need to win over the likes of the OP and IR/JSO's methods was more likely to give the gammons even more reliance on their hypertension tablets than change their voting philosophy or lifestyle choices. But 5 years is a disgrace. It looks like the judge was very thin skinned. Hallam got under their skin, got arrested a handful of times during the trial so it was never going to go well at sentencing. I hope he and the rest of them can use their time in prison positively for progress.
I agree that the sentences are very high (although, they’ll only serve 50% of it behind bars), but we weren’t at the court and didn’t hear the evidence presented
The UN Raporteur was and described it as an unfair trial and in breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
Additionally the judge referred to climate change as an opinion. The honourable gentleman erred as it is regarded as scientific consensus. I would suggest that he is too remote from modern life and thus incompetent for presiding over that particular trial.
They were expressly forbidden by the judge to talk about climate change. In these sorts of cases, that’s not uncommon for there to be restrictions on this sort of evidence (mostly a time thing) but this judge took a pretty hard line on it.
If you can't talk about the reasons why you did something, what's the point of a trial?
"Mr X, you stand accused of assault."
"He was on fire, I was trying to put it out."
"No mitigation will be heard - it's only your opinion that he was on fire, five years for trying to justify your actions. "
Positively Orwellian.
The Green parties got 7% of the vote at the election so 93% don't think Green issues are their number 1 priority.
Protest all you want but if you break the law then accept the consequences.
PS for whoever asked up thread I fully expect to still be here in 25 years time.
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
If you can’t talk about the reasons why you did something, what’s the point of a trial?
It's not an unreasonable question. There's a good write up about the goings-on at the trail here. I think in most cases they restrict it to stop days and days of experts and so on, and accept that the evidence is real. In this case, as the protestors were mostly representing themselves, I think the judge probably wanted to stop them grandstanding in the dock. As it was I think he gave them some latitude, but these folks are seasoned protestors, they're not going to just roll over.
Trial started on the wrong foot, and got steadily more farcical. It's probs. due a re-trail at some point.
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
Either you did actively revel in the misfortunes of others, or you're baiting other posters on STW.
Neither reflect well on you.
PS for whoever asked up thread I fully expect to still be here in 25 years time.
Well, god admires positive thinkers. So well done you.
Society however, has to tolerate its ball and chains. And say what you like about our current ball and chains, they are bloody good at voting. Not so hot on science and thinking beyond their personal immediate needs; but no one is better at voting. And incontinence pants. They carry those off with panache. I wonder if they make environmentally friendly incontinence pants - don't suppose there's much of a demand.
