do they have right to cause the disruption (which they planned)
This is a fair charge / point. So, 'disruption'. In the same way do those who cause disproportionate CO2 output have a right to cause far greater disruption to things that actually matter? I mean, I get held up, stuck in my car on a road for a couple of hours. So what, happens all the time in transport of all types (apart from my bike). Flooding my home is a bit more disruptive and the causal link is there.
Would be interesting to hear what the newly-appointed Prisons Minister might have to say about the sentence.
This is a good summary.
". JSO is no doubt sure of its cause, but its position is frightening. It claims, in effect, the right to immobilise the country and decide who is allowed to go where (for example, by its ‘blue light policy’ it arrogated itself the power to say that the police would be allowed to use the M25 but no-one else would). No state can allow such a corrosive policy: any private group that tries to say that citizens can only go about their lawful business with their say-so needs to be suppressed, and hard."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-fanatics-deserve-their-lengthy-jail-terms/
Roger Hallam, the guy with the longest sentence; I’m glad he says he’s moved on in terms of protesting methodology.
If you read the BBC report he seems to have forgotten that as he was actively trying to disrupt the trial and was arrested 3 times.
Sentence is disproportionate and I don't have any beef with the cause, but he sounds like a cock.
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
ircFull Member
This is a good summary.
In your opinion, my opinion would be to treat most of the verbiage in the spectator to be rather biased against green issues
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
I was wondering that about the farmers' protests in Wales. Presumably someone will have been prosecuted for deliberately blocking the traffic on the way to Cardiff in the tractors?
The Green parties got 7% of the vote at the election so 93% don’t think Green issues are their number 1 priority.
That's poor stats interpretation on your part. It's about confidence in the Greens as a government overall not how people rate the environment in terms of priorities. The Greens did better this year than in past elections which is supported by polling on the topic.
Outside of the Telegraph and Spectator or other biased media outlets (bias goes both ways) there are long-running polls that show the environment as increasingly important in people's minds -
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/36279-environment-once-again-top-three-priority-british-
June 2021, The environment is once again a top three priority for the British public
British adults are consistently ranking the environment as one of their top three ‘most important issues facing the country today ahead of Brexit, immigration, crime, and many others
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304 - pre 2019 election it was already well up there
Houns +1, donating also
had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
That's ****ing pathetic.
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
That the god-given right to drive a Range Rover everywhere, while running over small animals and environmental protestors is enshrined in the Magna Carta?
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
Best make sure you never ever inconvenience anyone. As the police services in this sceptred isle know how to mission creep things like this. Driving down the wrong lane (left or right turn only) and then cutting in to go straight ahead, off to court for you being an inconvenience to the public.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
Yes it's hyperbole but remember councils regularly mis-use RIPA, parking companies flout the law on use of DVLA data. . .
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
I'm not sure you have enough to do.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
This. If everyone who causes delays to transport gets 5 years we're going to need a lot more prisons to hold everyone who voted for Brexit, anyone who voted Tory and the resulting underfunding of roads, railways, border posts, and of course everyone who parks their ****panzers on the double yellows because they CBA to walk 100 yards. OTOH it will make the world a much nicer place for everyone else.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
Apparently it's not the same. If some halfwit brings the M25 to a standstill because they didn't bother to check they had sufficient fuel in their vehicle, or they skidded their lorry, then it is just one of life's little inconvenience which no one can do much about.
But if a couple of hippies who think they are on a mission to save the planet bring the M25 to a standstill by climbing up a gantry then that's outrageous and they deserve to have the book thrown at them.
5 years is the bottom. Of the top tier of sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving.
Is this because it holds up
Outside of the Telegraph and Spectator or other biased media outlets (bias goes both ways) there are long-running polls that show the environment as increasingly important in people’s minds –
Except you are quoting a poll from 3 years ago. A more recent poll shows that it was only 5th in people's concerns overall & only 4% of voters made the environment the most important issue
I think there has undoubtedly been a backlash against green issues & I would suggest that at least part of that is because of people like JSO overreaching the issue. Let's face it, they are attempting to antagonise the very people they should be trying to win over. Culture Wars in action. I don't think society as a whole benefits from having one section of the population getting their information on climate change from the Daily Mail whilst another section attempts to force through change by disrupting people's lives. Someone up above posted about how about Fair Fuel protesters getting 5 years inside. I'd turn it around. Is it OK for a small number of activists to attempt to get their demands by bringing chaos to everyone else. It's fine if you are concerned about climate change & those concerned are environmentalists, but what about activists who decide there are too many immigarnts in the country, or people who think fuel prices are too high or there are too many cycle lanes? Essentially protests like this don't 'win' the argument, they demonstrate that they don't have enough popular support to get through the measures they want and are effectively relying on (passive aggressive) 'force' to do it. I reckon people should think very carefully about supporting these types of protests just beacuse you agree with the cause.
Don't get me wrong. I think 5 years is excessive, but the purpose of a sentence is to make sure people don't repeat the offence and to deter others. I think it will probably do that, at least in the shorter term.
This sentence didn't come from any type of democratic process it is the misuse of power by the right ring dribbling elite in the Tory party and the right wing press.
irc sounds uncannily like 'The Male Online ' from Viz
I think there has undoubtedly been a backlash against green issues
Only in the right wing press and right wing political parties. Not in the mainstream
TJ. I refer you to the opinion poll above.
This sentence didn’t come from any type of democratic process it is the misuse of power by the right ring dribbling elite in the Tory party and the right wing press.
Good to see the right wing aren't alone with the conspiracy theories, as stated many times, the judiciary are separate from politics, something that we should celebrate within the UK.
Meh self appointed middle class knobs get what was coming to them, I'm struggling to be too upset on the specifics of the case but do have an issue with the sentance in comparison to say killing a cyclist. Bit the same with the protests, let's not confuse the importance of the issue with the motivation of the protesters. Climate change is real and wreaking terrible consequences on communities across the world, often in places least able to cope. Some retired numbnut blocking the M25 isn't going to make a positive difference.
The protesters need to stop and have a long think about what they have done and the real world consequences of their actions, in the meantime we need to properly engage in climate change mitigation whilst at the same time understand a significant proportion of the population can't get their head around anything more global than their local Facebook group.
the judiciary
Enforce the law, they don’t make it.
This sentence didn’t come from any type of democratic process
I disagree with the sentence and hope it can be appealed
But... can you describe what a democratic sentencing process would be? Are you referring to FPTP putting parties in power, without a genuine majority, who then put laws in places, that the judge in this case used to deliver a sentence at the harsher end of what was available to him?
TJ. I refer you to the opinion poll above.
Which has nothing to do with a backlash at all.
Enforce the law, they don’t make it.
They don't 'enforce the law'
Which has nothing to do with a backlash at all.
In 2021 the Yougov poll indicated that the environment was one of the three most important issues to the British public. JSO were formed in 2022. In 2024 environmental issues slipped to 5th in a poll by the same company.
How successful have JSO been in developing public support for action to be taken to confront climate change?
Remember - if you stay under the bridge you dont get the jail
I think you need to understand what a backlash is.
They don’t ‘enforce the law’
apply the law then. Still dont make it
apply the law then. Still dont make it
Yes, that's the legislator that does that, the judge, who is appointed by the crown, interprets and applies the law on an individual case basis, they apply this sentence against the applicable criteria, the defendants lawyers have the ability to appeal the sentence, which will go through the judicial appeals process, none of this will involve parliament, or the PM, or the tories.
Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?
If you’re going to be a dick then you’re probably best doing it in the pub or somewhere with less impact than in front of the person who’s about to pass sentence on you, no?
If you’re not bright enough to figure that one out for yourself, I don’t think you can expect much sympathy
Binners - really?
In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted. this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.
the crime here is also NOT the protest but organising the protest. thought crime.
Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws and that they were not allowed to make the defense let alone the absurd sentance
The environment slipped this year as the tories drove the country off a cliff, immediate concerns, like vote the ****ers out will have pushed the environment down the agenda.
I voted tactically to do my bit, but under a PR system would vote green.
I for one have considered where is I'd be professionally if I took part in a demonstration on behalf only the environment.
This sentencing only makes me more militant...
disruption from climate change is in the post for the vast majority of us - JSO are highlighting it - the courts are criminalising it - imo a harsh but suspended ‘we get it but the act is bad’ would’ve been fair - 5 years for it is uncalled for and isn’t a good look for the justice system (or irc)
Uncle Jezza… thought crime?
Seriously.., get a grip.
I’m not passing comment on the cause. I’m passing comment on their behaviour once arrested, charged and put on trial.
Once on trial - which they presumably expected, given their antics/protests/whatever - they deliberately decided to behave like dicks in the courtroom despite being warned repeatedly to pack it in.
So they opted to deliberately and intentionally do a bit of courtroom grandstanding to wind up the person who was about to sentence them
Like… der!
If you’re that dense, then you deserve everything you get.
Unless the harsh sentence is what you were after in the first place
Have any of them actually commented on the sentence? I expect their happy as Larry having made themselves martyrs through their own stupidity
They’re like a really shit Taliban
In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted. this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.
The Attorney General appealed a case that used this defence, the high court upheld the appeal, which means that the judge in this case has to take that into account, so no, this judge did not decide to make it no longer available, that was done via the previous government and the high court, meaning all judges have to interpret this ruling into their cases.
yes binners - this prosecution was for a thought crime.
Check it out. “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance” Is what they were prosecuted for and the defense of "lawful excuse" was denied them
Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws
They weren't given 5 year sentences under "draconian laws" they were given those sentences partly because they ****ed about in court and had to be arrested (again).
I agree that the judges' rule that they couldn't mention climate change was harsh, but it's not in of itself unusual to restrict those kinds of evidence submissions, had they engaged barristers on their behalf they could've probably successfully argued against it. Instead they chose civil disobedience (again), which given how much latitude judges in the UK have in their own courts [when sentencing] wasn't the smartest move ever, or couldn't have come as massive surprise either
So all the breathless headlines saying they got 5 years for protesting and so forth are incorrect (no surprise there) agendas make for more exciting reading than the actuality.
Good point Argee. It wasn't the judges decision as such
Check it out. “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”
So did they actually plan it or were they just casually thinking about planning it? Mulling it over in their heads?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that only one of those things would result in a conviction
Or are you suggesting that if a group of Jihadist (or for balance far right) terrorists were arrested while only at the planning stage of blowing lots of people up, then they shouldn’t be tried as this essentially only amounts to a ‘thought crime’?
It's not dense behaviour, it's logical and consistent behaviour. If you put yourself in a position of multifaceted risk by blocking the M25 with your physical form because you have no respect for a system that pollutes the planet and sends entire species into extinction, why the **** would you suddenly be all respectful in front of someone placed in a position of authority who represents that very same system? You're in the system whether you're in jail or not.
No - they got 5 years for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
conspiracy to commit murder is rather different from conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. Looking up conspiracy perhaps might be worthwhile as well. You do not have to commit the act for the conspiracy charge to be valid and you can get as in this case years in jail for conspiracy to commit a no jail time offense
Ok… I’m playing devils advocate here because I’m not talking about the cause, I’m talking about the rule of law.
So… Tommy Robinson and Britain First all passionately believe that this countries problems are caused by immigration
So they decide to plot to bring the road system of the south east to a standstill to highlight their cause
They are arrested while at the planning stage and charged.
They decide to defend themselves and repeatedly interrupt proceedings to shout far right slogans, despite being repeatedly told by the judge not to
As a result of this they are particularly harshly sentenced
I presume you’d all be up in arms over their treatment and condemning at as ‘thought crime’?
Harsh Nickc? - as Argee pointed out it was a political decision to make these defenses inadmissible because folk had been using them to be acquitted.
This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy
