Protesting

[discovolante]

I wonder if it would be better to slather every public area with giant photos of floods, wildfires, droughts etc with a nice wee logo of Shell or something (or not) placed in a prominent position. Probably too expensive to print.

I'm not sure if anything happened to the person who tried to run over a JSO protestor (or rather I think successfully ran over their foot), anyone know?

[Woodchopper]

I have not read the full sentencing document, so I do not have an opinion. It appears that many of the protesters were on bail or probation, which does significantly change sentences.

The sentencing remarks can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex- ... nd-others/

Yes, aggravating factors include prior offences, that they were on bail and that they broke an existing injunction (as well as the very widespread disruption caused and planned).

The judge also appears to have assumed that their behaviour during the trial suggests a lack of remorse. He also mentioned wanting to deter similar activities.

[Woodchopper]

I wonder if it would be better to slather every public area with giant photos of floods, wildfires, droughts etc with a nice wee logo of Shell or something (or not) placed in a prominent position. Probably too expensive to print.

IMHO a better option would be to call for specific solutions. There is already very high public knowledge and concern about global warming. Lack of awareness isn’t the explanation for lack of action. What is needed is the political will to implement solutions.

For example, demand a £1 per kilometre levy on every plane journey starting or ending in the UK, or a £1 per kilo levy on beef. I’m sure that people can think of many others. Set up a list of specific policies and demonstrate for them.

[discovolante]

I wonder if it would be better to slather every public area with giant photos of floods, wildfires, droughts etc with a nice wee logo of Shell or something (or not) placed in a prominent position. Probably too expensive to print.

IMHO a better option would be to call for specific solutions. There is already very high public knowledge and concern about global warming. Lack of awareness isn’t the explanation for lack of action. What is needed is the political will to implement solutions.

For example, demand a £1 per kilometre levy on every plane journey starting or ending in the UK, or a £1 per kilo levy on beef. I’m sure that people can think of many others. Set up a list of specific policies and demonstrate for them.

Yes I think we've reached a point we probably weren't at in the mid to late 10's. Although there's probably still some room for some 'shock factor'.

Possibly part of the problem is that many of the solutions (i.e. the alternatives to fossil fuels) are potentially relatively local. E.g. wind farms might provide an alternative energy source for everyone due to energy being fed into the grid, but don't necessarily create the same employment and economic opportunities across the country. But I suppose allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a great way to not do anything at all.

[Tristan]

I have not read the full sentencing document, so I do not have an opinion. It appears that many of the protesters were on bail or probation, which does significantly change sentences.

The sentencing remarks can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex- ... nd-others/

Yes, aggravating factors include prior offences, that they were on bail and that they broke an existing injunction (as well as the very widespread disruption caused and planned).

The judge also appears to have assumed that their behaviour during the trial suggests a lack of remorse. He also mentioned wanting to deter similar activities.

I'd encourage people to read these remarks. It doesn't take long. The sentences seem very justifiable to me. There are no mitigating circumstances for any of them. And they'll be out in half the time anyway.

[Woodchopper]

But I suppose allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a great way to not do anything at all.

Certainly, and people can spend a decade debating options and end up not doing anything. Alternatively, focus upon specific ways to reduce emissions, and accept that some people will lose out or be disproportionately affected. Try to mitigate harms that affect them. This is normal politics and has happened for a very long time.

[discovolante]

But I suppose allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a great way to not do anything at all.

Certainly, and people can spend a decade debating options and end up not doing anything. Alternatively, focus upon specific ways to reduce emissions, and accept that some people will lose out or be disproportionately affected. Try to mitigate harms that affect them. This is normal politics and has happened for a very long time.

It has, but in this case the pace of change is too slow to nusr muddle through as normal. Partly because it's an extremely complicated problem, even assuming everyone was on board with solving it. Besides, disruption and upheaval is fairly 'normal' too in the grand scheme of things.

[Sciolus]

I am wondering why you are not answering the question which I’ll ask for the third time. What punishment do you think would have been appropriate or do you think they shouldn’t have been punished at all? Surely that’s not a difficult question to answer at least in general terms.

Good question. You first. What punishment would you give for protesting by throwing rocks and breaking two windows at 10 Downing Street?

[Woodchopper]

But I suppose allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a great way to not do anything at all.

Certainly, and people can spend a decade debating options and end up not doing anything. Alternatively, focus upon specific ways to reduce emissions, and accept that some people will lose out or be disproportionately affected. Try to mitigate harms that affect them. This is normal politics and has happened for a very long time.

It has, but in this case the pace of change is too slow to nusr muddle through as normal. Partly because it's an extremely complicated problem, even assuming everyone was on board with solving it. Besides, disruption and upheaval is fairly 'normal' too in the grand scheme of things.

I agree, and it is possible to make rapid changes if there is agreement on what to do.

[Stranger Mouse]

I have not read the full sentencing document, so I do not have an opinion. It appears that many of the protesters were on bail or probation, which does significantly change sentences.

The sentencing remarks can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex- ... nd-others/

Yes, aggravating factors include prior offences, that they were on bail and that they broke an existing injunction (as well as the very widespread disruption caused and planned).

The judge also appears to have assumed that their behaviour during the trial suggests a lack of remorse. He also mentioned wanting to deter similar activities.

I'd encourage people to read these remarks. It doesn't take long. The sentences seem very justifiable to me. There are no mitigating circumstances for any of them. And they'll be out in half the time anyway.

Whether or not you agree with the judge (who presumably understands the law in general and this case in particular better than any of us) that does seem to be reasonable in the way it’s all detailed as a justification for lack of leniency.

However, I believe there is “reporting” (my quotation marks) which is “interesting” (another’s question marks) about the judge’s history so no doubt someone will be along to post that in a bit so we can take it into account.

[Stranger Mouse]

I am wondering why you are not answering the question which I’ll ask for the third time. What punishment do you think would have been appropriate or do you think they shouldn’t have been punished at all? Surely that’s not a difficult question to answer at least in general terms.

Good question. You first. What punishment would you give for protesting by throwing rocks and breaking two windows at 10 Downing Street?

I’m glad you agree it’s a good question. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked the other two. What type of punishment in general terms do you think would have been appropriate for the Hallam Five? Or do you think there should be no punishment?

As far as your own question goes I’m not sure how enlightening it will be to veer off into talking about something done over a century ago (presuming you are referring to the protests for women’s suffrage). However I will attempt to answer as a sign of good faith. I’d say if it was done today (let’s say for climate change awareness) that a suspended sentence may be appropriate depending on prior criminal history and mitigating /extenuating circumstances. The two months they got at the time does seem harsh now but I don’t know if it was by the standards of the time. I suppose the prison sentence did at least allow them to draw attention to the cause.

I don’t automatically assume that things thrown through windows is trivial as I was once standing near a poor young woman in a pub who almost got brained by a bottle which a thug had managed to throw through the window. I spent the next few minutes running around a town centre with the management of the pub in question so that we could get the perpetrators arrested (which we did). As such, as that has always stayed with me, I may be a little bit biased and emotional over things like that for which I apologise.

I’m happy to confirm that when one of those Downing Street protesters later set fire to a crowded theatre in a way that could have killed hundreds of people (and also started throwing hatchets at people) that I would be totally happy with a substantial custodial sentence.

[discovolante]

Why does the fact that the suffragette movement is a century old make it irrelevant?

[Stranger Mouse]

I wonder if it would be better to slather every public area with giant photos of floods, wildfires, droughts etc with a nice wee logo of Shell or something (or not) placed in a prominent position. Probably too expensive to print.

I'm not sure if anything happened to the person who tried to run over a JSO protestor (or rather I think successfully ran over their foot), anyone know?

I can’t find any aftermath involving a prosecution or police statement saying there wasn’t going to be a prosecution despite the fact that they apparently had the registration number if you listen to the video here. I suppose it’s possible that the blonde lady who shouts out that the other woman’s foot had been run over was mistaken. I suppose, as it’s quite a short clip, that bearing in mind the proximity of the protesters to the car that the driver could say they felt threatened and was trying to get away. Or that the protesters was partially responsible herself for pressing in on a moving car like that. Or possibly none of that is the case and the driver is just a psychopath that got away with it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-c ... 30982.html

[Stranger Mouse]

Why does the fact that the suffragette movement is a century old make it irrelevant?

I didn’t say it was irrelevant. I said I didn’t think my answer to the question about something that happened over a century ago would add as much to the discussion about the Hallam conviction as questions asked specifically about the Hallam convictions.

ETA: I trust you noted that despite considering the question I was asked to be of limited value I did my best to answer as completely and honestly as I could. Of course the entire history of protest going back to the dawn of humanity can be relevant but, and maybe I was wrong in thinking this, the question seemed to be an attempt to deflect from the questions I was asking.

[discovolante]

I wonder if it would be better to slather every public area with giant photos of floods, wildfires, droughts etc with a nice wee logo of Shell or something (or not) placed in a prominent position. Probably too expensive to print.

I'm not sure if anything happened to the person who tried to run over a JSO protestor (or rather I think successfully ran over their foot), anyone know?

I can’t find any aftermath involving a prosecution or police statement saying there wasn’t going to be a prosecution despite the fact that they apparently had the registration number if you listen to the video here. I suppose it’s possible that the blonde lady who shouts out that the other woman’s foot had been run over was mistaken. I suppose, as it’s quite a short clip, that bearing in mind the proximity of the protesters to the car that the driver could say they felt threatened and was trying to get away. Or that the protesters was partially responsible herself for pressing in on a moving car like that. Or possibly none of that is the case and the driver is just a psychopath that got away with it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-c ... 30982.html

It's a shame we don't have footage for the few seconds leading up to when it actually happened. Because from what we do have it looks a lot like the driver drove up towards some people standing holding a banner and pushed through them. But I don't really know without seeing it.

[discovolante]

Why does the fact that the suffragette movement is a century old make it irrelevant?

I didn’t say it was irrelevant. I said I didn’t think my answer to the question about something that happened over a century ago would add as much to the discussion about the Hallam conviction as questions asked specifically about the Hallam convictions.

ETA: I trust you noted that despite considering the question I was asked to be of limited value I did my best to answer as completely and honestly as I could. Of course the entire history of protest going back to the dawn of humanity can be relevant but, and maybe I was wrong in thinking this, the question seemed to be an attempt to deflect from the questions I was asking.

Yes I did see you'd answered, but comparing current protests with historical ones is one reasonable way to sense-check your opinions, whichever way that ends up taking you.

[Sciolus]

I am wondering why you are not answering the question which I’ll ask for the third time. What punishment do you think would have been appropriate or do you think they shouldn’t have been punished at all? Surely that’s not a difficult question to answer at least in general terms.

Good question. You first. What punishment would you give for protesting by throwing rocks and breaking two windows at 10 Downing Street?

I’m glad you agree it’s a good question. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked the other two. What type of punishment in general terms do you think would have been appropriate for the Hallam Five? Or do you think there should be no punishment?

As far as your own question goes I’m not sure how enlightening it will be to veer off into talking about something done over a century ago (presuming you are referring to the protests for women’s suffrage). However I will attempt to answer as a sign of good faith. I’d say if it was done today (let’s say for climate change awareness) that a suspended sentence may be appropriate depending on prior criminal history and mitigating /extenuating circumstances. The two months they got at the time does seem harsh now but I don’t know if it was by the standards of the time. I suppose the prison sentence did at least allow them to draw attention to the cause.

I don’t automatically assume that things thrown through windows is trivial as I was once standing near a poor young woman in a pub who almost got brained by a bottle which a thug had managed to throw through the window. I spent the next few minutes running around a town centre with the management of the pub in question so that we could get the perpetrators arrested (which we did). As such, as that has always stayed with me, I may be a little bit biased and emotional over things like that for which I apologise.

I’m happy to confirm that when one of those Downing Street protesters later set fire to a crowded theatre in a way that could have killed hundreds of people (and also started throwing hatchets at people) that I would be totally happy with a substantial custodial sentence.

It's relevant because the underlying question is, do you want to be on the right side of history or the wrong side of history? Do you want future generations to hold you in admiration or contempt?

As for the M25 case, if I were on the jury, I would have voted to acquit, not least because the trial was so blatantly rigged.

[Stranger Mouse]

Good question. You first. What punishment would you give for protesting by throwing rocks and breaking two windows at 10 Downing Street?

I’m glad you agree it’s a good question. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked the other two. What type of punishment in general terms do you think would have been appropriate for the Hallam Five? Or do you think there should be no punishment?

As far as your own question goes I’m not sure how enlightening it will be to veer off into talking about something done over a century ago (presuming you are referring to the protests for women’s suffrage). However I will attempt to answer as a sign of good faith. I’d say if it was done today (let’s say for climate change awareness) that a suspended sentence may be appropriate depending on prior criminal history and mitigating /extenuating circumstances. The two months they got at the time does seem harsh now but I don’t know if it was by the standards of the time. I suppose the prison sentence did at least allow them to draw attention to the cause.

I don’t automatically assume that things thrown through windows is trivial as I was once standing near a poor young woman in a pub who almost got brained by a bottle which a thug had managed to throw through the window. I spent the next few minutes running around a town centre with the management of the pub in question so that we could get the perpetrators arrested (which we did). As such, as that has always stayed with me, I may be a little bit biased and emotional over things like that for which I apologise.

I’m happy to confirm that when one of those Downing Street protesters later set fire to a crowded theatre in a way that could have killed hundreds of people (and also started throwing hatchets at people) that I would be totally happy with a substantial custodial sentence.

It's relevant because the underlying question is, do you want to be on the right side of history or the wrong side of history? Do you want future generations to hold you in admiration or contempt?

As for the M25 case, if I were on the jury, I would have voted to acquit, not least because the trial was so blatantly rigged.

Interesting. I’ll then ask two further questions.

1) Do you have any evidence that the trial was blatantly rigged or is it just the way you feel? Can you provide a link to this evidence if you have any?

2) if the crime was committed as alleged rather than being the result of a fixed prosecution would you still vote to acquit because you don’t think they should be punished for it?

As you opened the door I’ll walk through it. In your example of the Downing Street protesters one of them (Mary Leigh) went on to set fire to a crowded theatre and throw a hatchet at the PM which missed and hit someone else. Am I on the wrong side of history if I am glad that women got the right to vote and wish it had happened sooner but think it was wrong to carry out an act that could have killed hundreds of people?

[Tristan]

There's also a fundamental difference here. Women had no involvement in the democratic process. That was kind of the point of the suffragettes. Their options were far more limited.

The JSO lot though are all entitled to contribute to the democratic process. They can vote, they can stand for election and make their case. They just don't like the results of that so think they're above the law. They're not.

[Stranger Mouse]

There's also a fundamental difference here. Women had no involvement in the democratic process. That was kind of the point of the suffragettes. Their options were far more limited.

The JSO lot though are all entitled to contribute to the democratic process. They can vote, they can stand for election and make their case. They just don't like the results of that so think they're above the law. They're not.

Roger Hallam did start the Burning Pink political party/ limited company but their attempt to change minds electorally didn’t work out at all either by seats or percentage of vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Pink

Some Hallam enthusiasts did actually vandalise the Green Party headquarters because they weren’t doing enough against climate change but this didn’t seem to have any effect either. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53770794

If it’s true that the Green Party support Green policies in general but obstruct specific helpful policies due to being NIMBYs I would suggest that currently Labour have done more to point that out by bringing it up in Parliament.

[Grumble]

When being on the right/wrong side of history, remember that there is a legitimate argument that the suffragettes delayed women getting the vote, the suffragists were quite pissed off with them.

[Stranger Mouse]

When being on the right/wrong side of history, remember that there is a legitimate argument that the suffragettes delayed women getting the vote, the suffragists were quite pissed off with them.

I wonder if there is an argument that the suffragettes helped the suffragists by making them look like reasonable seansible people rather than extremists.

[Grumble]

When being on the right/wrong side of history, remember that there is a legitimate argument that the suffragettes delayed women getting the vote, the suffragists were quite pissed off with them.

I wonder if there is an argument that the suffragettes helped the suffragists by making them look like reasonable seansible people rather than extremists.

Maybe so.

[nekomatic]

I’m honestly unsure what I think the correct sentence would have been here, on a scale from symbolic to draconian, or indeed whether I think JSO tactics are worthwhile or not.

I do know that confected outrage about the effects of delaying people’s journeys can do one, unless the person being outraged has also called for custodial sentences for the delays due to people who cause crashes by negligent driving.

[Stranger Mouse]

I’m honestly unsure what I think the correct sentence would have been here, on a scale from symbolic to draconian, or indeed whether I think JSO tactics are worthwhile or not.

I do know that confected outrage about the effects of delaying people’s journeys can do one, unless the person being outraged has also called for custodial sentences for the delays due to people who cause crashes by negligent driving.

I’ve seen a lot of motoring offences which seem to have resulted in absurdly lenient sentences but
I don’t have any well thought ideas on how it could be put right if there is something to be put right. I haven’t driven in years and when I did it was largely like the proverbial little old lady (I hope that isn’t sexist) so never got any points or anything.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/lega ... -offences/