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’?
Two of the four were arrested near the gantry ready to go. One had bought the climbing kit and rented the accommodation. The other one was the bloke who organised it all. It had progressed far beyond a casual discussion about options.
Bi8nners - false equivalence because the far right slogans are probably illegal in themselves unlike the climate change ones are not - and yes I would fight for their right to have a peaceful protest if they were capable of such a thing and kept within the laws around incitement to racial hatred
You either believe in the right to peaceful protest or you do not.
I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them. Inverse snobbery?
This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy
No, this is exactly what you get in a liberal democracy if you absolutely insist on being a tit
I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them. Inverse snobbery?
I haven’t supported or not supported anything. What I’m defending is the impartial application of our democratically decided laws, applied through an independent judiciary
Its you and various others that seem to have an issue with that, because you support that particular cause, so maybe it’s you who has more in common with North Korea, Kim Jong Jezza?
Do you think the suffragettes should have had massive jail sentences? The greenham common protestors? The anti apartheid protesters? The anti nazi protesters? the pro choice protesters?
You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of the impartiality of the independent judiciary in a democracy
Which bit are you struggling with?
Because it looks like you’re advocating totalitarianism
Tandem Putin!
Errmmm - do you realise that the best defenses they have have been removed from them? Defenses that has worked in the past.
these are defenses that have been removed from protesters having been successfully used in the past.
Its an unjust law
Its you that is gleefully enjoying a totalitarian law here. Not allowed top speak in their defense
democratically decided laws
Errrmmm - the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician. Nothing democratic about having your rights that have been enjoyed for hundreds of years removed on the whim of a politician. No democvratic votye on this
I’m sure that Stalin would have insisted that the establishment of communism was a worthwhile cause to create a traffic jam on the M25.
The court would have declared that inadmissible too. You can’t just pick and choose Pol Jezza
Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?
That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge. The judge stating that climate change is opinion display a breach of Rule 1 by the learned gentleman (who would appear to be incompetent to try the case by reason of the section in bold).
Lets get this right. You think thats it right that a basic legal defense successfully used previously and a long standing principle in UK law has been removed on the whim of a politician. I find it odd you are on the same side as Braverman on this and on the opposite side to the UN bod, amnesty, and various other civil rights organisations
Weird
That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge
Yeah, but he’s got the wig on so… you know… probably worth taking note of the difference in job title and subsequent power balance between ‘your honour’ and ‘the accused’ before being a dick
Just a thought
the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician.
A democratically elected hard right politician.
If you don't like the laws get yourself elected and change them.
So to clarify Binners, is your position on this...... that because in court, they repeatedly tried to use as a defence, something which up until this point has previously been allowed, but as a result of the Tory clamp down on protest was now deemed illegal, that they deserve 5 years in jail and should just take this lying down?
This clampdown and shutdown of protest, let's not forget, in the name of climate justice, was pushed for by Lee Anderson and Stella Braverman amongst others. Your response is that they're dreaded weirdos and deserve everything that they get? Brill.
I am waiting for Keir Starmer to amend this draconian unjust law which has caused the imprisonment of these brave freedom fighters.
Are the grown-ups posting pictures again?
We are all subject to the same laws. They are set by democratically elected governments (which we may or may not have voted for) and applied equally to all by an independent judiciary
if any of us find ourselves in a court of law, we are all subject to the same proceedings and judgements, which we will be made well aware of
You are suggesting that the people who’s cause you agree with should be cut more slack than those who’s causes you don’t agree with or who don’t have a ‘cause’ at all to use as an excuse for their lawbreaking
They seemed to think that because they personally thought their cause was just that they should be somehow exempt to the laws that cover the rest of us.
I’m sure most criminals could come up with some argument or other to say the same
I’m not expressing an opinion either way about what causes I think are more just than others. I’m simply saying that we are all equal under the law and if you decide that’s not the case, and you possess some sort of entitlement to exemplary considerations, then there’s a potential price to be paid for that.
You then run the risk that said independent judiciary may take a pretty dim view of your sense of entitlement and exceptionalism
You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’
Will you be applying this to all cases before the courts, or just this one?
What if you’re busy before a trial starts so you can’t inform the judge who the goodies and the baddies are?
The attorney general at the time raised an appeal, which the high court reviewed, and it was the high court that made the ruling, can't remember the AG's name, female tory KC, but to raise and be successful with the appeal, they would have had to have a decent argument.
Again, no real understanding of all the goings on in this trial, but two things you don't do in court is be in contempt, and jury tampering, both of which it sounds like happened during this trial on several occasions, but not at a level to have a mistrial.
It has a feel of being a bit of a show trial by ER/JSO, so doubt it'll stop whatever is coming next, personally, i have no real feel for this one, sentences look harsh, but i think everyone who understands what's been going on with JSO and other protests, changes to legislation and so on, is this a line in the sand for future protests, will it escalate, it's not looking great.
You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’
There is a two tier system of justice and it is exactly what we need to be fighting against. Look at what happened on the Sarah Everard vigil. Look at what happened to the Republic protesters at the coronation. Now look at the comparative wide berth given to Tommy Robinson and his gang of psychotic thugs. As TJ has pointed out, the very banners and slogan many of them parade could be classed as hate crimes.
Yet Hallam et al are denied the right of use of a defence which has historically been deemed as acceptable. This has been pushed through by authoritarian idealogues. You claim it as an example of liberal democracy. That is a mistake. Instead, it is an example of iliberal democracy, one of the key manifestations of right wing populist governments. It is a clear assault on true liberal democracy and it is very dangerous to not call it out as such. Look at what the more radical right in America are doing in the courts right now. That is not democractic in any sense, yet it is happening in the 'land of the free'.
You can rail against it all you like, but the sentences handed out today (which I personally think are absolutely preposterous) are entirely of their own making
You don’t get to ignore the rules that apply to everyone else because of some sense of personal righteousness.
Well, you can, but this is what happens
I’ll repeat again: if it was Tommy Robinson doing it - who I don’t doubt feels just as passionately about his particular ‘cause’ as JSO do - you’d all be cheering his 5 year sentence
We either have an impartial, independent system of justice - that is blind to ‘causes’ and concentrated on the actual law - or we don’t. And if we don’t then we’re all ****ed!
You may be personally unhappy with todays judgements, but the alternative is far, far worse, because who gets to decide which causes are just and which aren’t?
The judges summing up is a good read. It expains fully the reasons for these entirely justified sentences. Not least that the planned disruption was far worse than that they succeeded in achieving. The consensus view on climate change is accepted.
The conduct of Hallam during the trial did not add to his sentence but derived him of any mitigation based on the plea he was a changed man.
Multiple previous convictions with light sentences had not deterred them.
^ that's the side that you're on Binners. A troll posting shite to poke fun at David Lammy yesterday....I can't imagine his motivation for that thread.
My motivation? I hadn't seen it before and was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.
Troll? Just someone with different opinions to you. Last time I checked that was allowed.
^ that’s the side that you’re on Binners
Sides?
Do you not get what I’m saying?
I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise
There shouldn’t be, and can’t be ‘sides’ when it comes to legal proceedings and judgements. That’s the way it just has to be
... was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.
I'm amazed that you're amazed. It's hardly like incompetence is a new phenomenon amongst cabinet reshuffles.
In this particular role, in the last ten years prior to Lammy we've had: David Cameron, James Cleverly, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson. Paragons of virtue and intellectual heavyweights all I'm sure you'll agree, Lammy sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison.
I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise
correct - and this is not. The removal of the necessity defense was a political act of interference from a politican.
The removal of the necessity defense was a political act of interference from a politican
From a democratically elected politician and passed by a vote in Parliament. That’s the way this whole democracy lark works,
We have to deal with the world as it is, rather than how we’d like it to de, particularly when talking about laws and rules. Everything must be universal and apply to everyone, or it’s worthless
If you want to see what the alternative looks like, with genuine interference in individual cases, then this gives something of a perspective
Russia jails US journalist Gershkovich for 16 years
"Lammy sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison."
I agree. I am confident the others would not have thought Henry VII came after Henry VIII.
Having read the judgement I realised I chose the wrong thread title. As it was a Sun journalist that infiltrated the zoom call then reported it to the police the thread should have been titled "Gotcha!"
Chris Packham and Dale Vince:
passed by a vote in Parliament
That's just it the removal of the defence was not passed by parliament it was enacted using Henry VIII rules, there was no scrutiny.
as sandwich says so very democratic.
If the government banned Greggs would you just accept it?
The lengthy multi-year sentences handed to Just Stop Oil activists are “not acceptable in a democracy”, a UN special rapporteur has said, as the government faced growing pressure to reverse the previous administration’s “hardline anti-protest” approach.
Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur for environmental defenders, joined a growing chorus of voices condemning the sentences handed down to the five defendants for planning non-violent protests on the M25.
A host of human rights campaigners joined Forst in decrying the sentences. Sam Grant, director of advocacy at Liberty, said what appeared to be a trend for increasingly severe sentences for non-violent protest indicated “a grave erosion of … freedoms” in the UK. Hanna Hindstrom, who investigates rights abuses against environmental defenders for Global Witness, said the “incredibly harsh” sentences were “a profound injustice”.
And Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s human rights adviser, called on the government to repeal the portions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that legislated the statutory offence of public nuisance used against the defendants.
@irc, thanks for throwing up the Judge's summing up. I was wrong; they didn't get a longer sentence for arsing about in court, but it makes for more balanced reading that this thread at least.
If you want to see what the alternative looks like
Thats the point - what we saw this week was a long way down the road to that alternative.
(The title of this thread is disgusting, the threat we face is closer to home than Moscow)
A first past the post democracy works because the policies and laws they enact are resonable and proportionate. The last Tory Government did not think laws oe decent standards applied to them and some of their Covid practices and behaviour was corrupt and illegal. The using of draconian laws and sentences to imprison people for legitimate peaceful protest is plain wrong.
The last government passed laws which undermined individuals rights to protest and this is not part of a democracy. The dragging of the goverment by various members of the Tory right is not what most people voted for.
The homeless were fortunate that they didn't make some nasty laws to stop rough sleeping.
I agree with @fasgadh these prosecutions would attact howls of protest if they happened in Russia or China.
I agree with all of that.
I just like winding TJ up 😀
The Edinburgh defence again so soon binners?
The point is it wasn't legitimate protest. That is why they were convicted. Legitimate protest would be things like marches and rallies.
The danger there being poor attendance might demonstrate the true level of support they have in the wider public.
So standing outside a oil terminal with a slogan on a bit of cardboard is not legitimate protest? You can be jailed for that. When we confronted the NF and BNP that wasn't a march or rally but it needed doing. Now some of their abhorent facist views seem to be shared by sections of the Tory party.
I suspect the disproportionately harsh sentences will have the opposite effect to that intended by the establishment.
This is what usually happens when the intellectual and moral balance of power lies with those punished.
It’s clear to anyone with any intelligence that the protesters cause is far more important than a bit of disruption and a few missed flights, no matter how irritating that might be to individuals and that the protests to come will turn violent. I fully expect innocent people will lose their lives in protest situations before humanity starts to realise climate change is an existential threat. Of course by that point many many more innocent people will have died through direct consequences of actual climate change…..
IRC - under this draconian law any protest that inconveniences anyone can be prosecuted. From attempting to stop the BNP from marching to a march or demo on any subject.
All protest is now illegal in the UK unless it has zero effect.
the CND marches, greenham common, - all now punishable by long jail tgerms
The point is it wasn’t legitimate protest
Do you think the Colston protest in Bristol was legitimate?
Exactly.
if peaceful protest is now illegal and punished by lengthy sentences why not just go straight for violent protest - what you got to lose?
The point is it wasn’t legitimate protest. That is why they were convicted.
I'd have another read of the court transcripts that you've posted. That isn't why they were convicted.
Just to lighten this thread up a bit....fun fact about Extinction Rebellion....their inaugural meeting was at a church in Macclesfield. Such an unlikely place for a movement like this to first meet!
winston
Free Member
I suspect the disproportionately harsh sentences will have the opposite effect to that intended by the establishment.
You mean the endless headlines created by the campaigns to have them released or the five page threads on social media forums?
