Good News At Last

“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.

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.

Donated in IRC’s name

Link to donations site:

https://chuffed.org/pay/campaign/109139

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.

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 wankpanzers 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

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters

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.