FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > JSO protesters jailed
JSO protesters jailed
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Reading the outcome of the trial of 5 JSO protesters accused of bringing the M25 to a standstill has strangely confused me! Why? Because the judge was spot on in terms of their motives and drive, while sentencing seemed to be fair for the disruption caused. This statement from Judge seemed to sum up my thoughts on JSO protesters who cause chaos and disruption: He said the defendants were "parading their political views" by appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change". The coercive nature of one defendant who was trying to influence the jury was also stopped by this judge. Well done judge Hehir." Just shows what happens when you stand up to the fossil fuels industry. Four and five year sentences for protesting. | |||
"Reading the outcome of the trial of 5 JSO protesters accused of bringing the M25 to a standstill has strangely confused me! Why? Because the judge was spot on in terms of their motives and drive, while sentencing seemed to be fair for the disruption caused. This statement from Judge seemed to sum up my thoughts on JSO protesters who cause chaos and disruption: He said the defendants were "parading their political views" by appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change". The coercive nature of one defendant who was trying to influence the jury was also stopped by this judge. Well done judge Hehir." Watched the man who pepper sprayed the protestors in Germany. They soon moved on | |||
"Reading the outcome of the trial of 5 JSO protesters accused of bringing the M25 to a standstill has strangely confused me! Why? Because the judge was spot on in terms of their motives and drive, while sentencing seemed to be fair for the disruption caused. This statement from Judge seemed to sum up my thoughts on JSO protesters who cause chaos and disruption: He said the defendants were "parading their political views" by appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change". The coercive nature of one defendant who was trying to influence the jury was also stopped by this judge. Well done judge Hehir. Just shows what happens when you stand up to the fossil fuels industry. Four and five year sentences for protesting. " ********************************** Rubbish, they went too far 'protesting', as you would call it. These clowns caused a lot of damage in their actions, I hope these sentences make others of their ilk think before repeating such stupidity. | |||
| |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting." They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. | |||
"We are going to be shocked on what happens to our climate over the next twenty years The protesters will be vindicated " We live in a democracy. | |||
| |||
"We are going to be shocked on what happens to our climate over the next twenty years The protesters will be vindicated " Converting to plant based diets would reduce climate emissions by 25% Reap what you sow | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway." Average sentence for sexual assault in the UK. 5 1/2 years. These protesters were made an example of because of what their cause. | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. Average sentence for sexual assault in the UK. 5 1/2 years. These protesters were made an example of because of what their cause." Get extra points for planning as classified as intentionally knowing your breaking the law. I'm sure it's the same with every crime when it comes to guidance on sentences | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. Average sentence for sexual assault in the UK. 5 1/2 years. These protesters were made an example of because of what their cause. Get extra points for planning as classified as intentionally knowing your breaking the law. I'm sure it's the same with every crime when it comes to guidance on sentences " Same as SA. Pretty sure everyone knows they're intentionally breaking the law. | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway." Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now. . I strongly suspect future governments are going to get sued by their citizens. | |||
| |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now. . I strongly suspect future governments are going to get sued by their citizens." Yawn. If the government said as of next year there will be no fossil fuels sold in this country; no gas, no petrol what would the 'citizens' say? You can't have it both ways. | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting." "They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway." "Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now." If that's the case, why are the eco warriors wasting their time blocking roads? Why don't they just present this evidence in a court, and get the judgement they want? | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Causing 1,000s of motorists to be stuck in their vehicles for hours is essentially k1dnap, the guideline tariff for which is 6 to 11 years. JSO lot off lightly." Kìdnap would be a bit of a reach, considering that there's no element of taking the person away from their normal environment. But False Imprisonment is exactly what they did, trapping thousands of motorists in their vehicles. The maximum sentence for that is life, with the average being 6 years. | |||
| |||
"Causing 1,000s of motorists to be stuck in their vehicles for hours is essentially k1dnap, the guideline tariff for which is 6 to 11 years. JSO lot off lightly. Kìdnap would be a bit of a reach, considering that there's no element of taking the person away from their normal environment. But False Imprisonment is exactly what they did, trapping thousands of motorists in their vehicles. The maximum sentence for that is life, with the average being 6 years." False Imprisonment it is then, with a life tariff. | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now. If that's the case, why are the eco warriors wasting their time blocking roads? Why don't they just present this evidence in a court, and get the judgement they want?" Is it possible that the "eco warriors" have a different point of view to this person on a swingers forum? | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story. "It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault."See you at the Appeal.  | |||
"They also made arrests at the JSO Soup Night too under: Public Order Act "which makes it illegal to conspire to disrupt national infrastructure projects". The Police believe the meeting was called to plan blocking holidaymakers from airports etc. Great call. "Excellent work. | |||
"Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now." "If that's the case, why are the eco warriors wasting their time blocking roads? Why don't they just present this evidence in a court, and get the judgement they want?" "Is it possible that the "eco warriors" have a different point of view to this person on a swingers forum?" Yes. That's exactly the point I was making. There clearly isn't any evidence that climate change is an existential threat to anyone alive today, which is why we don't see court cases. I'd be interested to hear what that guy thinks is "prima facie evidence" of endangering life. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal."The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in | |||
"Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now. If that's the case, why are the eco warriors wasting their time blocking roads? Why don't they just present this evidence in a court, and get the judgement they want? Is it possible that the "eco warriors" have a different point of view to this person on a swingers forum? Yes. That's exactly the point I was making. There clearly isn't any evidence that climate change is an existential threat to anyone alive today, which is why we don't see court cases. I'd be interested to hear what that guy thinks is "prima facie evidence" of endangering life." | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
"I do believe that we are in the throws of serious climate change - what I don't believe is that a bunch of badly informed people have the right to stop life dead for thousands of people. Not least of which is a threat to individual life and emergency services while doing so and I suggest you would feel exectly the same way if emergency services couldn't get to your child, your mother, wife in the back of a car having a serious medical emergency. Or the Doctor or nurse or carer simply trying to get to work on time. Protesting is fine - bringing other peoples lives to an absolute standstill is not. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
I do believe that we are in the throws of serious climate change - what I don't believe is that a bunch of badly informed people have the right to stop life dead for thousands of people.
Not least of which is a threat to individual life and emergency services while doing so and I suggest you would feel exectly the same way if emergency services couldn't get to your child, your mother, wife in the back of a car having a serious medical emergency. Or the Doctor or nurse or carer simply trying to get to work on time.
Protesting is fine - bringing other peoples lives to an absolute standstill is not.
"Exactly this! People aren't pottering around the M25 for the scenery. They are going to hospitals, schools, courts, weddings, funerals ....all important deadlines. It's breathtakingly arrogant to stop them going about their everyday business - however worthy the cause. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
"It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last. This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“. Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things. In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions. "I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions.
I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for.
"He didn’t, he gave them a sentence that reflected the seriousness of their criminal actions. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions.
I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for.
He didn’t, he gave them a sentence that reflected the seriousness of their criminal actions. "As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months? | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions.
I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for.
He didn’t, he gave them a sentence that reflected the seriousness of their criminal actions.
As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months?"I don’t write the laws or agree the sentences for breaking them, I leave that to the professionals who conduct this work after the jury has reached a verdict. All of those checks and balances were met, I’m happy. If you wish to support them further you could donate to their crowd funding to lodge an appeal. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings. Protest against pretty much anything in this country has been virtually outlawed, and cheering it on because it happens to be people who don’t share your political leanings who are suffering THIS TIME, is very short sighted indeed. The same judge, earlier this year, let off a police officer who had a threesome with with a colleague and a woman so d*unk she had been thrown out of a nightclub, in the back of his patrol car." You must understand conspiracy to disrupt the countries infrastructure is a serious criminal offence? It isn’t a case of Fred talking to John about what funny slogan they’re going to come up with on the organised march Sunday afternoon…. | |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings. Protest against pretty much anything in this country has been virtually outlawed, and cheering it on because it happens to be people who don’t share your political leanings who are suffering THIS TIME, is very short sighted indeed. The same judge, earlier this year, let off a police officer who had a threesome with with a colleague and a woman so d*unk she had been thrown out of a nightclub, in the back of his patrol car. You must understand conspiracy to disrupt the countries infrastructure is a serious criminal offence? It isn’t a case of Fred talking to John about what funny slogan they’re going to come up with on the organised march Sunday afternoon…." Lots of things are serious criminal offences, like an on-duty policeman abusing his position of power to have sex with a woman unlikely to be in a condition to consent, in the back of his police car. In fact I would consider that a considerably worse offence, yet one is punished by prison time and the other is not. I fully expect the sentences of the protesters to be considerably reduced on appeal, but that shouldn’t distract from the fact that clamping down on protest like this is a scarily authoritarian act. | |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings." But nobody has been sentenced for planning a protest. What has happened is that some people have been arrested under suspicion of conspiring to disrupt national infrastructure. None of them have even been charged yet. Let alone tried or sentenced. A different group of people have been jailed for 5 years for endangering the lives of others, not just because they were on a Zoom call. | |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings. Protest against pretty much anything in this country has been virtually outlawed, and cheering it on because it happens to be people who don’t share your political leanings who are suffering THIS TIME, is very short sighted indeed. The same judge, earlier this year, let off a police officer who had a threesome with with a colleague and a woman so d*unk she had been thrown out of a nightclub, in the back of his patrol car. You must understand conspiracy to disrupt the countries infrastructure is a serious criminal offence? It isn’t a case of Fred talking to John about what funny slogan they’re going to come up with on the organised march Sunday afternoon…. Lots of things are serious criminal offences, like an on-duty policeman abusing his position of power to have sex with a woman unlikely to be in a condition to consent, in the back of his police car. In fact I would consider that a considerably worse offence, yet one is punished by prison time and the other is not. I fully expect the sentences of the protesters to be considerably reduced on appeal, but that shouldn’t distract from the fact that clamping down on protest like this is a scarily authoritarian act." You are doing whataboutery again. The jury found them guilty and the judge handed out the penalty, if it is reduced at appeal that is neither here nor there and within their rights. But to try and justify a shorter sentence by comparing it to a single case of sexual misconduct that you have also made assumptions on what might have happened is not in my opinion a reasonable measure. | |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings. Protest against pretty much anything in this country has been virtually outlawed, and cheering it on because it happens to be people who don’t share your political leanings who are suffering THIS TIME, is very short sighted indeed. The same judge, earlier this year, let off a police officer who had a threesome with with a colleague and a woman so d*unk she had been thrown out of a nightclub, in the back of his patrol car." "Exactly this, it’s the police’s job to police, and the courts’ job to judge. I think perhaps the last 14 years has got people thinking that the Home Secretary has the right to interfere." | |||
"Regardless of your political views on JSO, if you don’t find it chilling that people have been sentenced for being on a zoom call planning a protest can be jailed for 5 years, then you have considerable authoritarian leanings. But nobody has been sentenced for planning a protest. What has happened is that some people have been arrested under suspicion of conspiring to disrupt national infrastructure. None of them have even been charged yet. Let alone tried or sentenced. A different group of people have been jailed for 5 years for endangering the lives of others, not just because they were on a Zoom call." it is certainly not just because they were on the zoom call but their actual role in the conspiracy and the extent of the disruption they were intending to cause. It looks like they also have previous convictions and were also on bail. All this meant that while the judge acknowledged many share their views on climate change,and there is general consensus on this, they moved from campaigner to fanatic. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions.
I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for.
He didn’t, he gave them a sentence that reflected the seriousness of their criminal actions.
As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months?"********************************** That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....?? Your so-called 'arguments' are just as bad as the gang of idiots now quaking in their gaol cells and, I'll bet my last coin every one of said convicts, if offered, would turn back the clock and would have remained home, rather than cause all that disruption and waste of everyone's time and money. There are more peaceable means to get a message across. If these 'protestors' (and others) had not acted in such a stupid, reckless and selfish way the legislation would never had been required. They all have brought it on themselves. Oh, and finally, I have known many of these 'eco-warriors' during my life, I at least have some experience of their kind. With the exception of the above bunch, my views I shall keep to myself. | |||
| |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
See you at the Appeal.
The people excited about this would feel different if it was people protesting for something they believed in
It is the protestors that were getting excited, they fed off each other, almost trying to outdo the last blockade, or disrupting a larger event than the last.
This is why the judges comments were so important, it was recognised the protestors were appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change“.
Putting it very simply they were going about it the wrong way. You can support the cause but it doesn’t mean you must support the way they were going about things.
In my opinion, the protestors were taken over by people who are politically motivated above all else, this has lost them the support of the general public due to the increased aggressive actions of disruption and the total disregard for anyone who was impacted by their actions.
I think it's inappropriate to give a harsher sentence because the judge didn't like what they were protesting for.
He didn’t, he gave them a sentence that reflected the seriousness of their criminal actions.
As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months?
**********************************
That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....??
"Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. " Your so-called 'arguments' are just as bad as the gang of idiots now quaking in their gaol cells and, I'll bet my last coin every one of said convicts, if offered, would turn back the clock and would have remained home, rather than cause all that disruption and waste of everyone's time and money. There are more peaceable means to get a message across. If these 'protestors' (and others) had not acted in such a stupid, reckless and selfish way the legislation would never had been required. They all have brought it on themselves. Oh, and finally, I have known many of these 'eco-warriors' during my life, I at least have some experience of their kind. With the exception of the above bunch, my views I shall keep to myself." | |||
"Comparisons to SA are emotive. It's comparing monetary costs and other costs with something much more darker. However that's the challenge of sentencing. It's estimated there were 700k of costs to people. Plus 1m of police costs. Problem missed flight and funerals (how often is the later used against the Tories?). Someone with cancer missed an appointment that took 2 months to reschedule. £5k of food couldn't be delivered to a hospital. Noone was seriously injured but that's as much luck v judgement. And the intent was much bigger than this. The reason it was less was because a journo got on that zoom call. Again very hard to compare any of this versus a personal attack such as SA. But we shouldn't also minimise any crime that does have this personal element, or avoided having personal element because of luck rather than intent. " Only emotive because SA should be a much more serious crime than protesting. In my opinion. | |||
"Comparisons to SA are emotive. It's comparing monetary costs and other costs with something much more darker. However that's the challenge of sentencing. It's estimated there were 700k of costs to people. Plus 1m of police costs. Problem missed flight and funerals (how often is the later used against the Tories?). Someone with cancer missed an appointment that took 2 months to reschedule. £5k of food couldn't be delivered to a hospital. Noone was seriously injured but that's as much luck v judgement. And the intent was much bigger than this. The reason it was less was because a journo got on that zoom call. Again very hard to compare any of this versus a personal attack such as SA. But we shouldn't also minimise any crime that does have this personal element, or avoided having personal element because of luck rather than intent. Only emotive because SA should be a much more serious crime than protesting. In my opinion. " As a rule I agree. But if your protest involves knowingly putting lives at risk then you start moving from protest to something more serious. | |||
" Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. " There are many documented incidents of members of the public being in a medical emergency while JSO were pretending to save the world - Ambulances have been blocked - A woman was blocked from taking her baby to the hospital - a pregnant woman was blocked from attending a hospital. A fire engine and ambulance were blocked in the same call-out. There are many more. Stop being so naïve, Nobody but nobody has the right to do that.  | |||
"As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months? ********************************** That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....?? Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too." ********************************* So, you now equate sexual assault with suffering "the inconvenience of a protest happening", do you.......?? Despicable thing to post. | |||
" Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. There are many documented incidents of members of the public being in a medical emergency while JSO were pretending to save the world - Ambulances have been blocked - A woman was blocked from taking her baby to the hospital - a pregnant woman was blocked from attending a hospital. A fire engine and ambulance were blocked in the same call-out. There are many more. Stop being so naïve, Nobody but nobody has the right to do that. "********************************* Spot on. Thank you.  | |||
"As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months? ********************************** That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....?? Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. ********************************* So, you now equate sexual assault with suffering "the inconvenience of a protest happening", do you.......?? Despicable thing to post." If you read my posts, I'm doing the opposite. Be calm, breathe and take a second. | |||
| |||
" Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. There are many documented incidents of members of the public being in a medical emergency while JSO were pretending to save the world - Ambulances have been blocked - A woman was blocked from taking her baby to the hospital - a pregnant woman was blocked from attending a hospital. A fire engine and ambulance were blocked in the same call-out. There are many more. Stop being so naïve, Nobody but nobody has the right to do that.
You have every right to your opinion, I have every right to mine."Yes, You do. Absolutely. Even when it's clearly wrong. Answer me this, or at least answer it to yourself. A hypothetical: JSO camp on your doorstep because you don't have solar power, or you use gas. (And that's not a stretch, it wasn't that long ago that they were slashing tires on older cars) Your partner has a heart attack, and you call emergency services, and they can't attend to you because of JSO protestors blocking your freedom to move in a public space. What do you do? Really, what do you do? Say fine lads, I support JSO . . . Go away, and I'll see how my heart attack partner gets by! | |||
"Only emotive because SA should be a much more serious crime than protesting. In my opinion." Sexual assault is an infinitely more serious crime than protesting. But that's because protesting isn't a crime. Endangering people's lives however *is* a crime. It's hard to say whether a sexual assault is more serious than almost killing someone. | |||
| |||
"As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months? ********************************** That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....?? Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. ********************************* So, you now equate sexual assault with suffering "the inconvenience of a protest happening", do you.......?? Despicable thing to post. If you read my posts, I'm doing the opposite. Be calm, breathe and take a second. " ******************************* I am calm. I'm simply disgusted. | |||
"As serious as sexual assault, give or take six months? ********************************** That's your THIRD post mentioning "sexual assault", don't you think maybe there are people here reading this who have indeed suffered from such assaults.....?? Sure, there might be, there might be someone here who has suffered from the inconvenience of a protest happening too. ********************************* So, you now equate sexual assault with suffering "the inconvenience of a protest happening", do you.......?? Despicable thing to post. If you read my posts, I'm doing the opposite. Be calm, breathe and take a second. ******************************* I am calm. I'm simply disgusted." Then we're on the same side. I also think that SA is significantly more serious than protesting. | |||
"Then we're on the same side. I also think that SA is significantly more serious than protesting." Then we're all on the same side. Everyone here thinks that sexual assault is more serious than protesting. That's why sexual assault is a crime, and protesting is not. | |||
| |||
"Far too severe punishment for the harm caused and it wasn't a good trial " ********************************** The trial would undoubtedly gone much better if one of the accused had behaved in an orderly and adult fashion and not been 'arrested three times for disobeying the orders of the judge' Also, eleven more arrested outside court for contempt. That is maybe the reasons for a 'bad trial' Again, certain types causing trouble leading to penalties on top of many others causing chaos leading to legislation, THEN blaming the government and police, courts, etc. for everything. Oh, I really do hope these now convicted five criminals do the time and with luck, these sad events dissuade others from following their ridiculous and selfish 'tactics'. Protest all you want, just don't put other lives at risk in so doing otherwise the laws now are in place to put you where you belong, behind bars. | |||
"Far too severe punishment for the harm caused and it wasn't a good trial ********************************** The trial would undoubtedly gone much better if one of the accused had behaved in an orderly and adult fashion and not been 'arrested three times for disobeying the orders of the judge' Also, eleven more arrested outside court for contempt. That is maybe the reasons for a 'bad trial' Again, certain types causing trouble leading to penalties on top of many others causing chaos leading to legislation, THEN blaming the government and police, courts, etc. for everything. Oh, I really do hope these now convicted five criminals do the time and with luck, these sad events dissuade others from following their ridiculous and selfish 'tactics'. Protest all you want, just don't put other lives at risk in so doing otherwise the laws now are in place to put you where you belong, behind bars." this is correct and as you say plays into the game that was being conducted by Hallam, who believes beyond all doubt he is above the law and knows best. The judge had a lot in with that fool and his disciples. | |||
"Far too severe punishment for the harm caused and it wasn't a good trial" What leads you to believe that it wasn't a good trial? Is it just that you don't agree with the outcome, despite not having seen any of the evidence? | |||
| |||
"It's all very well agonising over fine points of law, but who does the law serve? If a majority of people consider it unlawful to be prevented from going about their daily business, then that's the law right?" No. The law is what is written down in legislation, and what has been set as precedent. The opinion of the majority has nothing to do with it, and is rightly ignored. | |||
"Reading the outcome of the trial of 5 JSO protesters accused of bringing the M25 to a standstill has strangely confused me! Why? Because the judge was spot on in terms of their motives and drive, while sentencing seemed to be fair for the disruption caused. This statement from Judge seemed to sum up my thoughts on JSO protesters who cause chaos and disruption: He said the defendants were "parading their political views" by appointing themselves as "sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change". The coercive nature of one defendant who was trying to influence the jury was also stopped by this judge. Well done judge Hehir." Fully deserved sentences though doubt they will serve the full term. Protesting is fine and there has been many protests especially since the Israel, Garza conflict started so clearly not against the law. However putting lives in serious danger is going over the line in my opinion and is rightly prosecuted | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault."Have you considered that SA sentences are too short rather than these too long? | |||
| |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
Have you considered that SA sentences are too short rather than these too long? "But are the prisons too full and we the tax payer to tight they will be out in a year for good behaviour. And will then di it all again. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
Have you considered that SA sentences are too short rather than these too long? "Possibly. But it's a long established sentencing. Meanwhile stand up to oil companies, get nearly the same jail time. | |||
"It's all very well agonising over fine points of law, but who does the law serve? If a majority of people consider it unlawful to be prevented from going about their daily business, then that's the law right? It follows that transgressors must be punished." I agree that law should serve the people. But in practice, that hasn't been the case for a really long time. | |||
"Why does it always have to be something else imagineered from thin air? They were arrested, charged and found guilty of and sentenced for specific offences. That is good enough. That is the story. And only that is the story.
It's not though. The sentences are ridiculous, the judge commented on their cause making it a part of why he gave sentences close to what you get for sexual assault.
Have you considered that SA sentences are too short rather than these too long?
Possibly. But it's a long established sentencing.
Meanwhile stand up to oil companies, get nearly the same jail time. "Well since its less established sentencing sounds like they had more power over setting the precedent . Now lets hope they can slowly change the precedent on the long established sentencing of SA which is not severe enough. | |||
"The hard earned freedoms that we have, have been eroded by the last 14 years of government and legislation passed. This includes the rights to protest. We should be ashamed of our current state position, " ********************************** Anyone has the right to protest, nothing has changed. Period. The shame lies squarely with the fools that cause public nuisance and damage, leading to more legislation, and rightly too. Any responsible government of any political party would have acted so. | |||
| |||
"It's all very well agonising over fine points of law, but who does the law serve? If a majority of people consider it unlawful to be prevented from going about their daily business, then that's the law right? No. The law is what is written down in legislation, and what has been set as precedent. The opinion of the majority has nothing to do with it, and is rightly ignored." Well yes, but it goes deeper than that. Laws are made by elected representatives of the people. Democracy allows the majority view to prevail, and we have laws with which we all (broadly) agree. If we then have small groups intent on breaking the law for their own purpose and we do nothing, we have anarchy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"One of the main aims of JSO seems to be to get maximum publicity for their campaign - and these sentences have certainly done that. Their tactics are frequently very divisive - and I suspect this reveals a more political motive under the climate activism. I agree that a custodial sentence is needed, but i’m less keen on these people cluttering up the prison estate for years when there are more serious criminals who need to be in their place. I bet they’ve all got special dietary needs too "What is the ‘more political motive’ do you think? | |||
"Regardless of the barrack room lawyers debate that appears to be in place within this thread, I wonder what option will be if the climate crisis affects national and global life to the point it becomes unsustainable? Would those demanding the punishment for JSO protesters then roll back and think beyond their back-yard?" I don't think so. I think JSO will be seen by history as doing more harm than good to the climate cause. if you want people to come round to your way of thinking, you have to educate them, persuade them, and show that your attitude is better than theirs. JSO don't do any of that. Their tactics are just to get publicity, by disrupting as many people as possible. All that does is make people annoyed, and turn then against you. I think the M25 stunt has just made lots of people label them as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped'. JSO aren't getting their message across, and in fact they are actively making it less likely that anyone will listen. | |||
"Regardless of the barrack room lawyers debate that appears to be in place within this thread, I wonder what option will be if the climate crisis affects national and global life to the point it becomes unsustainable? Would those demanding the punishment for JSO protesters then roll back and think beyond their back-yard? I don't think so. I think JSO will be seen by history as doing more harm than good to the climate cause. if you want people to come round to your way of thinking, you have to educate them, persuade them, and show that your attitude is better than theirs. JSO don't do any of that. Their tactics are just to get publicity, by disrupting as many people as possible. All that does is make people annoyed, and turn then against you. I think the M25 stunt has just made lots of people label them as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped'. JSO aren't getting their message across, and in fact they are actively making it less likely that anyone will listen." In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. | |||
"Regardless of the barrack room lawyers debate that appears to be in place within this thread, I wonder what option will be if the climate crisis affects national and global life to the point it becomes unsustainable? Would those demanding the punishment for JSO protesters then roll back and think beyond their back-yard? I don't think so. I think JSO will be seen by history as doing more harm than good to the climate cause. if you want people to come round to your way of thinking, you have to educate them, persuade them, and show that your attitude is better than theirs. JSO don't do any of that. Their tactics are just to get publicity, by disrupting as many people as possible. All that does is make people annoyed, and turn then against you. I think the M25 stunt has just made lots of people label them as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped'. JSO aren't getting their message across, and in fact they are actively making it less likely that anyone will listen. In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. " Nice strawman! These are people who are going to work or going to see family. For tradesmen , it could be a day of income lost. If someone disrupts your life in the name of protesting, would you have a good or bad opinion against them? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate?" Nothing, because people don’t want to be mildly inconvenienced now to help with an issue that will affect their children and grandchildren, so we’ll continue to ignore the issue and call people who care about it nutters, and then say they don’t really care about it. | |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate?" The question should be asked. But blocking people in motorways isn't going to make people ask that question. | |||
| |||
"I'm not quoting because this is aimed more generally... No one on this thread is saying climate change isn't real, nor is anyone saying we should 'prioritise' fossil fuel profits. I wish I could put that in bold. The people saying this aren't actually listening to what is being said, not like they haven't heard those words before, huh. " They all know what's being said. But it's lot more convenient for them to make strawman claims like "People who do not believe climate change is real" or "people who believe we should prioritise fossil fuels" and argue against those imaginary people who don't exist. | |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate? The question should be asked. But blocking people in motorways isn't going to make people ask that question." It already has and whether the opinions in this thread agree or not the dialogue is developing and will continue to. Personally I have no particular view on the actions of JSO and would never consider myself an activist. JSO are just one of a myriad of action groups raising awareness to the climates degradation and need to adjust global reliance on outdated and polluting technologies….. | |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate? The question should be asked. But blocking people in motorways isn't going to make people ask that question. It already has and whether the opinions in this thread agree or not the dialogue is developing and will continue to. Personally I have no particular view on the actions of JSO and would never consider myself an activist. JSO are just one of a myriad of action groups raising awareness to the climates degradation and need to adjust global reliance on outdated and polluting technologies….. " Where is it asked? I have only seen negative attitude towards the cause because of these protestors. I am yet to see anyone who decided to do something for the environment because of these protestors. I personally know people who do a lot for the same cause and they all hate the JSO protestors. | |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate? The question should be asked. But blocking people in motorways isn't going to make people ask that question. It already has and whether the opinions in this thread agree or not the dialogue is developing and will continue to. Personally I have no particular view on the actions of JSO and would never consider myself an activist. JSO are just one of a myriad of action groups raising awareness to the climates degradation and need to adjust global reliance on outdated and polluting technologies….. Where is it asked? I have only seen negative attitude towards the cause because of these protestors. I am yet to see anyone who decided to do something for the environment because of these protestors. I personally know people who do a lot for the same cause and they all hate the JSO protestors." Reassuringly your response perpetuates the question and maintains the spotlight. JSO actions whilst frustrating for those directly involved are never intended to resolve the global climate crisis there and then, the consequential and protracted dialogue is the crucial goal ….. so here we are. | |||
"I'm not quoting because this is aimed more generally... No one on this thread is saying climate change isn't real, nor is anyone saying we should 'prioritise' fossil fuel profits. I wish I could put that in bold. The people saying this aren't actually listening to what is being said, not like they haven't heard those words before, huh. " Same can be said of the motorists in the M25. Very likely some were doing more for climate change in their own way than the protestors. We don't need a .gun held to our heads by zealots. | |||
"Notwithstanding the short-term priorities of getting to work on time …… surely the bigger picture should be focused on asking what happens when everything contemporary society knows and loves is threatened by the breakdown of our climate? The question should be asked. But blocking people in motorways isn't going to make people ask that question. It already has and whether the opinions in this thread agree or not the dialogue is developing and will continue to. Personally I have no particular view on the actions of JSO and would never consider myself an activist. JSO are just one of a myriad of action groups raising awareness to the climates degradation and need to adjust global reliance on outdated and polluting technologies….. Where is it asked? I have only seen negative attitude towards the cause because of these protestors. I am yet to see anyone who decided to do something for the environment because of these protestors. I personally know people who do a lot for the same cause and they all hate the JSO protestors. Reassuringly your response perpetuates the question and maintains the spotlight. JSO actions whilst frustrating for those directly involved are never intended to resolve the global climate crisis there and then, the consequential and protracted dialogue is the crucial goal ….. so here we are." "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't apply here. In case I didn't make it clear, there is no constructive dialogue had here because of their actions. Just a bunch of people who point out the stupidity of their actions. Even many environmentalists hate them because they are more destructive than constructive to environmentalism. | |||
| |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. " Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. | |||
" "Any publicity is good publicity" doesn't apply here. In case I didn't make it clear, there is no constructive dialogue had here because of their actions. Just a bunch of people who point out the stupidity of their actions. Even many environmentalists hate them because they are more destructive than constructive to environmentalism. You have your opinion and are focused on the immediacy of the disruptions caused I get that and don’t seek to counter it….. however, by perpetuating the subject with all its pros and cons, you are still giving airtime and attention to the longer term goal of JSO and to the climate crisis. " Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. | |||
| |||
| |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. " I really can't emphasise this enough, it wasn't a jail sentence for protesting against oil. It was a jail sentence for conspiring to cause disruption to national infrastructure, if they were doing this in the name of organic veg, the outcome would be the same. | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. I really can't emphasise this enough, it wasn't a jail sentence for protesting against oil. It was a jail sentence for conspiring to cause disruption to national infrastructure, if they were doing this in the name of organic veg, the outcome would be the same." Not in J2N’s universe ?? | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. " ********************************** Yet more fantasy, who would "protest against organic vegetables" in any numbers and cause such unecessary damage and risk to lives..?? That is why these five were gaoled, the DAMAGE and the RISK TO LIFE caused by their 'tactics' They could have been demanding anything, they were put away for the way they went about it. End of. | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. " the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. I really can't emphasise this enough, it wasn't a jail sentence for protesting against oil. It was a jail sentence for conspiring to cause disruption to national infrastructure, if they were doing this in the name of organic veg, the outcome would be the same." This is my understanding to. The act of being on a protest was not punished (if that were illegal then all those protesting about Israel in London would be in the same trouble). The subject of the protest was not punished. Protesting against fossil fuel companies was not punished. Only breaking the law was punished. For some they only see who was protesting and what against and just assume any punishment must be because of the subject of the protest. In some ways I agree it gives them publicity which they can use and exploit people's thinking about the outcome. That said they knew they were breaking the law to get this publicity so have to face the consequences | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. ********************************** Yet more fantasy, who would "protest against organic vegetables" in any numbers and cause such unecessary damage and risk to lives..?? " Okay what's happened here is, I've given an example to demonstrate a point. Apologies if that wasn't clear. " That is why these five were gaoled, the DAMAGE and the RISK TO LIFE caused by their 'tactics' They could have been demanding anything, they were put away for the way they went about it. End of." Erm, you were agreeing with me earlier about the sentencing being too harsh as it's not as severe as other crimes. | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. I really can't emphasise this enough, it wasn't a jail sentence for protesting against oil. It was a jail sentence for conspiring to cause disruption to national infrastructure, if they were doing this in the name of organic veg, the outcome would be the same." You're entitled to believe that. | |||
" In fairness, people who think climate change isn't real, and/or that we should continue to prioritise fossil fuels company profits, are going to label anyone advocating for action on climate change as 'annoying eco-nutters that should be stopped' / get excited about them being put in prison for 4-5 years. Your point is likely not just for the UK but for most western societies based on an economic strategy underpinning their governments. Absolutely. If they were protesting against organic vegetables they wouldn't have had the same sentence. It's clearly related to their cause. I really can't emphasise this enough, it wasn't a jail sentence for protesting against oil. It was a jail sentence for conspiring to cause disruption to national infrastructure, if they were doing this in the name of organic veg, the outcome would be the same. You're entitled to believe that. "I have just checked on the sentences passed down to people who have been guilty of causing disruption to national infrastructure, the railways are most abundant with people trespassing and being where they shouldn't be. 1 person who sat on bridge and caused 13 hours of delays, received a 12 month prison term. These fools conspired and organised over 120 hours of disruption to national infrastructure that resulted in "51,000 hours of driver delays, People missed flights, medical appointments and exams. Two lorries collided, and a police motorcyclist came off his bike during one of the protests on 9 November 2022 while trying to bring traffic to a halt in a rolling road block”. I see the sentence correct from the comparison to the 13 hours of a single train line being disrupted, how do you see it differently? | |||
| |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. " Dialogue was already happening with or without JSO protestors. All JSO managed to do was to throw some negative light at the topic. If they really cared about environment, there is lot of meaningful contribution they could have made. Instead they decided to go and disrupt lives of other people. It just shows that they never cared about environment in the first place. It's either plain attention seeking or just fulfilling their desires to disrupt other people's lives | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. " Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains." I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good" What about if the protesters were from strata of society that you approved of instead of "middle class kids" and weren't old "geriatric" and held a political ideology that wasn't "anarchist"? Would you still be as enthusiastic and energised by these people getting such long sentences? | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good What about if the protesters were from strata of society that you approved of instead of "middle class kids" and weren't old "geriatric" and held a political ideology that wasn't "anarchist"? Would you still be as enthusiastic and energised by these people getting such long sentences?" You have missed the point... The people creating the noise and taking centre stage for JSO are the people I describe and do not come across well to the nation. I can see you are using phrase energised and energy to describe people who have an opinion contrary to yours? I'm not energised by JSO, I'm the opposite, tired of them and hence my last post. | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good What about if the protesters were from strata of society that you approved of instead of "middle class kids" and weren't old "geriatric" and held a political ideology that wasn't "anarchist"? Would you still be as enthusiastic and energised by these people getting such long sentences? You have missed the point... The people creating the noise and taking centre stage for JSO are the people I describe and do not come across well to the nation. I can see you are using phrase energised and energy to describe people who have an opinion contrary to yours? I'm not energised by JSO, I'm the opposite, tired of them and hence my last post." Apologies, I meant you're energised by their long jail sentences. And I'm asking if the protesters were not distasteful to you, given some of the names you've called them, would you be as energised by their long sentences. IE not "geriatric", "middle class", "anarchists". | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good" Enlightenment, clearly, will take a little longer for some | |||
"That is why these five were gaoled, the DAMAGE and the RISK TO LIFE caused by their 'tactics' They could have been demanding anything, they were put away for the way they went about it. End of. Erm, you were agreeing with me earlier about the sentencing being too harsh as it's not as severe as other crimes." ************************************** You have me confused with someone or something else posted, I NEVER have agreed with you re. "the sentencing being too harsh", or is this another 'wriggling out of' post, similar to ones you have used against others previous...??!! I cannot recall agreeing with you on any other thread, incidentally. | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good Enlightenment, clearly, will take a little longer for some" It is so evident that people are unable to separate protesting from criminality. Starting there might help enlightenment | |||
" Again, talking about something doesn't automatically mean it is positive for that cause. I am yet to see a single person becoming pro-environmentalist because of JSO protestors. Change, in particular widespread human behavioural change is messy and complex. The need for most to go on a journey is a key aspect of any change process. Currently we are in the information gathering phase where ‘for and against’ arguments will be most abundant. Promoting dialogue is often the most important (albeit often very difficult) elements when making sense of all the information at hand…… clearly, at the very least we have started the journey. the important point in this dialogue is perception, and the actions of JSO have changed the narrative and conversations from curiosity and awareness to anger and dismissal. I have not heard any person speak highly of JSO in fact I hear thoughts on climate change ebbing due to their childish and destructive behaviour of JSO. They are now doing more damage than good, going down the same path a extinction rebellion, which should come as no surprise as it was founded by the same man that was jailed for 5 years, Hallam. The judge summed him up correctly as a person who has gone from campaigner to fanatic. Whichever way the dialogue is viewed, the fact of the matter is that it continues. Short-term pacification versus long-term adjustment of economic trajectory may well be the continuum this sits on, but nevertheless the core issue of enlightenment remains. I'm not seeing the enlightenment, I'm seeing a dull flicker about to go out due to brattish middle class kids and geriatric anarchists who are forcing their views down peoples throats. If this custodial sentence is a leveller to the above, it will have done some good Enlightenment, clearly, will take a little longer for some It is so evident that people are unable to separate protesting from criminality. Starting there might help enlightenment " ************************************ Unable or, (more likely), unwilling to separate protesting from criminality......... I can't believe some folks can be that stupid. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It rings alarm bells in my mind whatever your thoughts on the oil protestors. Some manslaughter cases get less, some drug dealer get less, some sex crime gets less. Seems harsh for blocking a road " | |||
"Four and five year sentences for protesting. They weren't given five year sentences for protesting, they were given 5 year sentences for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life", i.e. distracting motorists on the country's busiest motorway. Perhaps in x years time, civil cases will be brought against the government for "carrying out an act which had the effect of endangering life" as well. Eg, choosing to do too little to slow down climate change. And I hope such cases are also levvied against companies too. . It's not impossible either. Whilst there is a burden on proof, "the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied a fact or event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the fact or event was more likely than not". . There is enough prima facie evidence to bring a lot of these cases to court now. . I strongly suspect future governments are going to get sued by their citizens." 'Balance of probability' is the threshold that applies in civil cases. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the threshold that applies in criminal cases, such as this and is much higher, as balance of probability only has to reach the 51% mark. | |||
"It rings alarm bells in my mind whatever your thoughts on the oil protestors. Some manslaughter cases get less, some drug dealer get less, some sex crime gets less. Seems harsh for blocking a road " From what I have read . It is not just blocking a road. There are a lot of other factors. I am not sure if mentioned in court case. The emergency service having to put themselves at risk getting protesters down. Which in my view is not acceptable. ? | |||
"It rings alarm bells in my mind whatever your thoughts on the oil protestors. Some manslaughter cases get less, some drug dealer get less, some sex crime gets less. Seems harsh for blocking a road "It's not harsh given the scale of the disruption, 70,000 motorists and a commercial loss of £800,000. In that light, the penalties are way too lenient. | |||
| |||
" ... I strongly suspect future governments are going to get sued by their citizens. " Not if governments can help it! | |||
| |||
"It rings alarm bells in my mind whatever your thoughts on the oil protestors. Some manslaughter cases get less, some drug dealer get less, some sex crime gets less. Seems harsh for blocking a road " They were not jailed for protesting. Do you know how many protestors took part in the blockade? | |||
"Reading on Wiki about the 'leader' Roger Hallam, it seems he's done nothing positively constructive for most, if not all, his life. He's been a full time 'protestor' most of the time, against this or that. How such people get by is a mystery, who pays them? feeds them? houses them...??! Apparently, he was 'studying' at Kings College London for a PhD, "researching how to achieve social change through civil disobedience and radical movements"........!! His life story reads like a Monty Python skit. Only, this particular skit is bereft of any humour. Still, I for one don't mind contributing a tiny percentage of my earnings for the time he spends behind bars (for as long as he serves), to keep him well fed and safe. I have been considering this man's antics and compared them to the work of our emergency services, that's just one aspect of these stupid 'eco-warriors' which really pi*ses me off. Lastly, I am well aware there are many genuine and intelligent protest groups out there, doing what they believe to be right. I know (and have known many others) a good number of these folks, but, this lot, 'JSO', the 'extinction gang' or the fabulous 'loft insulators', (joke) et. al., really are causing more harm than any worthwhile good. Maybe one day it will dawn on them the suffering and expense, caused by their 'actions', has succeded only in turning most people against them. (That's the last post from myself on this thread and, as usual, everything above is my sincere opinion on the subject)." Start looking in to who funds them, and you will find the answers ... | |||
" Start looking in to who funds them, and you will find the answers ..." Do you know who funds them? | |||
"Reading on Wiki about the 'leader' Roger Hallam, it seems he's done nothing positively constructive for most, if not all, his life. He's been a full time 'protestor' most of the time, against this or that. How such people get by is a mystery, who pays them? feeds them? houses them...??! Apparently, he was 'studying' at Kings College London for a PhD, "researching how to achieve social change through civil disobedience and radical movements"........!! His life story reads like a Monty Python skit. Only, this particular skit is bereft of any humour. Still, I for one don't mind contributing a tiny percentage of my earnings for the time he spends behind bars (for as long as he serves), to keep him well fed and safe. I have been considering this man's antics and compared them to the work of our emergency services, that's just one aspect of these stupid 'eco-warriors' which really pi*ses me off. Lastly, I am well aware there are many genuine and intelligent protest groups out there, doing what they believe to be right. I know (and have known many others) a good number of these folks, but, this lot, 'JSO', the 'extinction gang' or the fabulous 'loft insulators', (joke) et. al., really are causing more harm than any worthwhile good. Maybe one day it will dawn on them the suffering and expense, caused by their 'actions', has succeded only in turning most people against them. (That's the last post from myself on this thread and, as usual, everything above is my sincere opinion on the subject)." If short term disruption to national infrastructure is balanced with long term destruction of the environment it’s a sure bet JSO or others, will not be stopping or anytime soon…. | |||
"Reading on Wiki about the 'leader' Roger Hallam, it seems he's done nothing positively constructive for most, if not all, his life. He's been a full time 'protestor' most of the time, against this or that. How such people get by is a mystery, who pays them? feeds them? houses them...??! Apparently, he was 'studying' at Kings College London for a PhD, "researching how to achieve social change through civil disobedience and radical movements"........!! His life story reads like a Monty Python skit. Only, this particular skit is bereft of any humour. Still, I for one don't mind contributing a tiny percentage of my earnings for the time he spends behind bars (for as long as he serves), to keep him well fed and safe. I have been considering this man's antics and compared them to the work of our emergency services, that's just one aspect of these stupid 'eco-warriors' which really pi*ses me off. Lastly, I am well aware there are many genuine and intelligent protest groups out there, doing what they believe to be right. I know (and have known many others) a good number of these folks, but, this lot, 'JSO', the 'extinction gang' or the fabulous 'loft insulators', (joke) et. al., really are causing more harm than any worthwhile good. Maybe one day it will dawn on them the suffering and expense, caused by their 'actions', has succeded only in turning most people against them. (That's the last post from myself on this thread and, as usual, everything above is my sincere opinion on the subject). If short term disruption to national infrastructure is balanced with long term destruction of the environment it’s a sure bet JSO or others, will not be stopping or anytime soon…." Uk carbon footprint is reported at 0.8% of global Meat farming is 60% of farming carbon emissions and farming is 25% of global carbon footprint War on the motorist is being tedious. Car tyre pollution alone is 1000 times more than exhaust pollution 26% of uk is obese, 37% overweight. Get our nation of salad dodgers on a diet, eat less, walk and cycle and consider plant based diets will make a larger contribution to reducing uk emissions | |||
"Reading on Wiki about the 'leader' Roger Hallam, it seems he's done nothing positively constructive for most, if not all, his life. He's been a full time 'protestor' most of the time, against this or that. How such people get by is a mystery, who pays them? feeds them? houses them...??! Apparently, he was 'studying' at Kings College London for a PhD, "researching how to achieve social change through civil disobedience and radical movements"........!! His life story reads like a Monty Python skit. Only, this particular skit is bereft of any humour. Still, I for one don't mind contributing a tiny percentage of my earnings for the time he spends behind bars (for as long as he serves), to keep him well fed and safe. I have been considering this man's antics and compared them to the work of our emergency services, that's just one aspect of these stupid 'eco-warriors' which really pi*ses me off. Lastly, I am well aware there are many genuine and intelligent protest groups out there, doing what they believe to be right. I know (and have known many others) a good number of these folks, but, this lot, 'JSO', the 'extinction gang' or the fabulous 'loft insulators', (joke) et. al., really are causing more harm than any worthwhile good. Maybe one day it will dawn on them the suffering and expense, caused by their 'actions', has succeded only in turning most people against them. (That's the last post from myself on this thread and, as usual, everything above is my sincere opinion on the subject). If short term disruption to national infrastructure is balanced with long term destruction of the environment it’s a sure bet JSO or others, will not be stopping or anytime soon…. Uk carbon footprint is reported at 0.8% of global Meat farming is 60% of farming carbon emissions and farming is 25% of global carbon footprint War on the motorist is being tedious. Car tyre pollution alone is 1000 times more than exhaust pollution 26% of uk is obese, 37% overweight. Get our nation of salad dodgers on a diet, eat less, walk and cycle and consider plant based diets will make a larger contribution to reducing uk emissions " I’ve never seen the logic of the idea to eradicate farm animals, as the numbers involved are tiny compared with wild animals which are not eaten to sustain a growing population. Following that argument all wild ruminants should be culled first. The point is moot however, as one large religious groups will not stop eating goat and mutton even if you asked them really really nicely. | |||
****A single cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year. Not counting for the emissions of any other livestock, 1.5 billion cattle, raised specifically for meat production worldwide, emit at least 231 billion pounds of methane into the methane into the atmosphere each year (Our World in Data).**** | |||
| |||
"The livestock question is about methane into the atmosphere - farting cows are a serious problem
****A single cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year. Not counting for the emissions of any other livestock, 1.5 billion cattle, raised specifically for meat production worldwide, emit at least 231 billion pounds of methane into the methane into the atmosphere each year (Our World in Data).**** "Bison, antelope, are ruminants. Horses zebra produce huge amounts of methane. Pigs are a little better. Perhaps we should persuade everyone to eat pork as a first step. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"I need a 'Just Stop Oil' sticker to put on my air fryer!"  | |||
"1.5 billion cattle. = one entire cow for every 4.5 people in the planet, including infants "The cows are having a Summit to get rid of the humans.  | |||
"1.5 billion cattle. = one entire cow for every 4.5 people in the planet, including infants
The cows are having a Summit to get rid of the humans. "https://images.app.goo.gl/JwCCERYsNm7z2k15A | |||
"1.5 billion cattle. = one entire cow for every 4.5 people in the planet, including infants
The cows are having a Summit to get rid of the humans. "Why, what's their beef? I will get my coat.. | |||
"1.5 billion cattle. = one entire cow for every 4.5 people in the planet, including infants
The cows are having a Summit to get rid of the humans.
Why, what's their beef?
I will get my coat.. "Something to do with methane and 8.1 Billion People.  | |||
| |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading!" No idea why this is a surprise nor the numerous other tactics likely to disrupt high-profile industries with large carbon footprints. | |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading! No idea why this is a surprise nor the numerous other tactics likely to disrupt high-profile industries with large carbon footprints. " Are you going to tell me that all the families who have planned for a vacation after a long time are going to absolutely love environmentalism after the JSO thugs have screwed up their plans resulting in a massive loss of their savings? | |||
| |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading!" They do not have a clue on the optics they send out…. | |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading! They do not have a clue on the optics they send out…." They know well about the optics. They don't care about that or the environment for that matter | |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading!" I particularly enjoy the pic that does the rounds of the JSO campaigner on a commercial flight. Wearing the T-Shirt | |||
"JSO has announced an airport campaign to disrupt summer holidays as much as possible. What terrible lives these people must be leading! No idea why this is a surprise nor the numerous other tactics likely to disrupt high-profile industries with large carbon footprints. Are you going to tell me that all the families who have planned for a vacation after a long time are going to absolutely love environmentalism after the JSO thugs have screwed up their plans resulting in a massive loss of their savings?" Bet the kids will have a memorable time wating in an airport. Surly even they realise its the young you need to educate and get on board ( no pun intended) to looking at no more oil extraction. | |||
| |||
"Legally speaking these loons are terrorists as they are targeting us and our way of life. Whether you agree or disagree with them, that is the brass tacks of the matter. C" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere, or the loons who are campaigning against that? | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere..." At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line)" I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. " So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C | |||
| |||
| |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C" If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that? | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that?" If people who are actively and knowingly contributing to changing climate are terrorists, all humans are terrorists, including you. | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that? If people who are actively and knowingly contributing to changing climate are terrorists, all humans are terrorists, including you." Let's see if that's what they meant then. | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that? If people who are actively and knowingly contributing to changing climate are terrorists, all humans are terrorists, including you. Let's see if that's what they meant then. " Pretty sure you know what they mean. The protestors getting more and more brave each day and are actually causing direct harm to people. | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that? If people who are actively and knowingly contributing to changing climate are terrorists, all humans are terrorists, including you. Let's see if that's what they meant then. Pretty sure you know what they mean. The protestors getting more and more brave each day and are actually causing direct harm to people. " Entering an airport illegally is a criminal offence and conspiring to do that is also an offence. The problem with JSO fanatics, they are not smart enough to workout a strategy that brings them the outcome they want, without landing themselves in jail. | |||
" Do you mean the loons who are continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere... At what point, in your view, does one become a "loon", for pumping "CO2 and other greenhouse glasses into the atmosphere"? (It's a fair point, just wondering where you draw the line) I would say it includes the fossil fuels industry, "scientists" that are funded by the fossil fuels industry to introduce doubt to the established climate science, those who lobby on behalf of the FF industry, and politicians who promote and prioritise FF industry profits over everything else. So it is fair to say that your biased in this and have shaped your opinion based on heavily debated science? C If you mean, I have a clear understanding because I've taken time to read about the science, yes. Anyway, which "loons" are "terrorists" legally speaking? People who are actively, knowingly contributing to changing the climate, or those who protested against that? If people who are actively and knowingly contributing to changing climate are terrorists, all humans are terrorists, including you. Let's see if that's what they meant then. Pretty sure you know what they mean. The protestors getting more and more brave each day and are actually causing direct harm to people. Entering an airport illegally is a criminal offence and conspiring to do that is also an offence. The problem with JSO fanatics, they are not smart enough to workout a strategy that brings them the outcome they want, without landing themselves in jail. " They do not care about the outcome. If they really cared about saving the environment, with the money and manpower they have got, they could do lot of constructive things. They could use their money to subsidise people to install solar panels or heat pumps in their homes. Given the labour cost involved in getting more renewable energy, they could train themselves in these jobs and provide these services for free. They don't even have to do those jobs. They can do other part-time jobs in the time they spend doing protests and going to prisons and give the money they earn for environmental causes. But no... They decided to go with an option that only has a negative impact on the cause they SAY they support. Some people enjoy the feeling of power trip over others by disrupting others' lives. The JSO protestors belong to that category and are using environmentalism as an excuse for that. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It is interesting to see how frees peach can be so easy given away. Rapists, Domestic violence perpetrators get less if anytime at all, but go against the fossil fuel industry and I one can get years. Sullas bill has shown its teeth now, lets see who else falls under this bill/law" I am a big supporter of free speech. But I don't understand how JSO's activities fall under free speech. They are free to speak anything they want. But blocking traffic isn't free speech. If you really care about free speech in this country, you need to start with the 2003 communications act that allows police to take actions on mean tweets. | |||
"It is interesting to see how frees peach can be so easy given away. Rapists, Domestic violence perpetrators get less if anytime at all, but go against the fossil fuel industry and I one can get years. Sullas bill has shown its teeth now, lets see who else falls under this bill/law" which bill ? | |||
| |||
