Protesting

[Gfamily]

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.

How about 50,000 hours detention between them?

rather than the >180,000 hours

[dyqik]

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.

Taking that argument to extremes, there should also be custodial sentences for people who cause delays by increasing the amount of traffic due to their choice to use a car.

Although they may get away with time served stuck in traffic jams.

[bjn]

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.

Almost certainly. It’s Overton windows shifting. People aren’t emotionless rational judges of evidence (vale Danny Kanneman), we normalise things we see regularly, even if it is something you don’t necessarily agree with on first glance. Normalising deep concern about climate change is a good thing in my book.

[bjn]

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.

Taking that argument to extremes, there should also be custodial sentences for people who cause delays by increasing the amount of traffic due to their choice to use a car.

Although they may get away with time served stuck in traffic jams.

Or companies that release software that screws over huge parts of the transport system, health system, financial system and many other systems in ways that a few dozen people blocking a highway couldn’t even dream of.

[Woodchopper]

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.

Worth noting that a lot of the apparently lenient sentences are for first offenders. If we want the criminal justice system to be concerned with rehabilitation then we shouldn’t call for people to be locked up after the first time they’ve been convicted. Though someone has multiple previous convictions and is on bail for driving offences then they should get the book thrown at them.

[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.

Taking that argument to extremes, there should also be custodial sentences for people who cause delays by increasing the amount of traffic due to their choice to use a car.

Although they may get away with time served stuck in traffic jams.

Or companies that release software that screws over huge parts of the transport system, health system, financial system and many other systems in ways that a few dozen people blocking a highway couldn’t even dream of.

I’d agree with that although obviously intent and/or level of negligence would have to be taken into account. I’m still waiting for some Post Office management to do some time.

[dyqik]

You should probably also do the same to oil companies and people that choose to use fossil fuels, given they they know they are causing disruption via climate change.

[Tristan]

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.

Worth noting that a lot of the apparently lenient sentences are for first offenders. If we want the criminal justice system to be concerned with rehabilitation then we shouldn’t call for people to be locked up after the first time they’ve been convicted. Though someone has multiple previous convictions and is on bail for driving offences then they should get the book thrown at them.

Meanwhile, Roger Hallam had 11 prior convictions and was on a suspended sentence at the time. Hence no leniency.

[lpm]

Just double the fine each conviction. £200 first offence would be £200,000 by the 11th.

Or ankle tag with increasingly restrictive rules. Nobody can do much protesting if their movements are limited to home, the corner shop and the local park.

The British obsession with prison sentences just has to stop.

[Stranger Mouse]

Just double the fine each conviction. £200 first offence would be £200,000 by the 11th.

Or ankle tag with increasingly restrictive rules. Nobody can do much protesting if their movements are limited to home, the corner shop and the local park.

The British obsession with prison sentences just has to stop.

I think the problem would be when they didn’t pay the fine and ignored the ankle bracelet but i would still like something like that to be at least attempt.

Right now it’s almost like slap on wrist followed by slap on wrist 11 times followed by hanging drawing and quartering on the 12th.

[Tristan]

Worth considering the disruption they intended to cause too. It went far beyond the disruption that actually happened. That’s addressed in the sentencing notes here. That kind of disruption goes even further beyond legitimate protest.

Had such disruption been caused, or planned, by a far right group attempting to change immigration policy, or an Islamist group trying to change foreign policy, rather than a cause nice middle class people are sympathetic to, we wouldn’t be calling it “protest”.

IMG_0503.png (538.51 KiB) Viewed 2477 times

[discovolante]

I get the relativist 'what if it was someone we didn't like' thing again as a sense check but also, some ideas really are just worse than others. It doesn't make it straightforward but sometimes some causes are just more...just than others.

I also assume the 'nice middle class' reference was definitely a reference to a specific subset of middle class people who don't have far right sympathies and who can afford to risk jail time, rather than middle class people as a whole.

[Stranger Mouse]

Apropos of nothing the 22 year old Cressida Gethin is the granddaughter of the race car driver Peter Gethin.

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

I was watching a speech given outside the court by Cressida’ mum where she supported her daughter’s actions and I was quite touched until I got to the part where she complained Cressida was going to miss her brother’s wedding when I thought “oh do f.ck off” and stopped it.

[Stranger Mouse]

When, in France, a union - be it the farmers or the transport workers or the teachers or whoever - holds the country to ransom by causing massive blockages or shutdowns or something, and so may force the government to accede to their particular demand of the moment, which might quite narrowly benefit their particular union interest, we tend to think, we are grateful that kind of thing doesn't happen here. And whilst I am aware of that kind of massive disruption caused by such protest action going on in France, I'm not aware that it goes on in other countries, particularly. Though there might well be quite large societal disagreements in such other countries.

Do we?

I don't. I wonder why the British are incapable of protesting actual injustices.

Do we indeed, that's why I wrote like that. It is often asserted in a lot of journalism, but do we really believe it?

A lot of the things that people close France down for seem to me to be about the narrow interests of that group, rather than terrible injustices. When the transport drivers closed Britain down, to a degree, because they thought petrol cost too much, and that was damaging their livelihood, was that an injustice? I certainly don't think so. I think petrol has to get more expensive. But they made a lot of noise, certainly caused a lot of mess, and got the politicians to accede to them.

And in general, narrow vested interests being able to impose their views on the rest of us is not good governance.

Can we really have laws on protest that distinguish how much of an injustice it is that is being protested about, and use that to grade how much societal disruption/property damage/etc it is reasonable for a protest on that subject to cause? Or do, in reality, our laws have to be blind to the subject of the protest, because many people believe many different things with different intensities? And so determine what is the reasonable extent of protest in the absence of a consideration of what is being protested about? This supposedly being a democracy and all?

Sonia Sodha has written on this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ve-done-it

[IvanV]

And in general, narrow vested interests being able to impose their views on the rest of us is not good governance.

Is stopping climate change a narrow vested interest?

No. But the reality of law is that the same protesting rules will apply to any kind of protest, as I don't believe in a law that says "worthier causes" can have more disruptive protests. So, if very disruptive protests are in general allowed, you will get narrow vested interests taking advantage of them. Indeed probably mainly them.

The previous protests about the price of fuel being too high was specifically about the business interests of small transport enterprises, I'd call that that's a narrow vested interest. Though in that specific case plenty of other people didn't mind fuel being cheaper, though it was counter-productive for the general policy aims and collective community interest. The farming and transport worker protests you see in France, that's a narrow vested interest.

[Tristan]

The mum of one of the protester's, Cressida, speaks: https://x.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1815303865106883045

"This means we will she will not be present at her brother's wedding next summer..."

Can she even hear how ridiculous she sounds???

[Sciolus]

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?

1. I assume you have been paying attention, so I will just note that the public interest / greater good must always be acceptable as mitigation (yes, even for murder).

2, 3. I honestly don't know. The effectiveness or otherwise of extreme protests is up for debate.

Also, let's remember that the government is also breaking the law and is not facing any consequences.

[Sciolus]

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.

The people most affected by climate change -- the global poor, the unborn -- have no involvement in the democratic process in the places that are primarily responsible for it.

[Sciolus]

And in general, narrow vested interests being able to impose their views on the rest of us is not good governance.

Is stopping climate change a narrow vested interest?

No. But the reality of law is that the same protesting rules will apply to any kind of protest, as I don't believe in a law that says "worthier causes" can have more disruptive protests. So, if very disruptive protests are in general allowed, you will get narrow vested interests taking advantage of them. Indeed probably mainly them.

The previous protests about the price of fuel being too high was specifically about the business interests of small transport enterprises, I'd call that that's a narrow vested interest. Though in that specific case plenty of other people didn't mind fuel being cheaper, though it was counter-productive for the general policy aims and collective community interest. The farming and transport worker protests you see in France, that's a narrow vested interest.

I agree it is probably not practical to draft primary legislation to make that distinction, but there are numerous other places it could be made, such as the public interest test before prosecution, acceptable mitigation and sentencing practices.

[DJL]

On the protest front, a family member on my mother's side wanted to get involved in anarchist politics in the late C19 and so travelled up to Paris and threw a bomb at the Prime Minister. He missed but there were casualties and he only escaped the guillotine because of his very young age. Instead he was sent to a penal colony where he led an uprising and ended his short life in front of a firing squad, apparently singing anarchist songs to the end.

They don't make protestors like that anymore.

[Stranger Mouse]

The mum of one of the protester's, Cressida, speaks: https://x.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1815303865106883045

"This means we will she will not be present at her brother's wedding next summer..."

Can she even hear how ridiculous she sounds???

Yeah I posted that earlier. I had some sympathy for the prison sentence - especially one of that length - but that complaint moved me straight into “go f.ck yourself” mode.

And Just Stop Oil have just posted a similar one for another of the “Whole Truth” / Hallam Five
https://x.com/juststop_oil/status/18156 ... 80851?s=61

It’s like they have taken professional advice on how to piss people off from Russell Brand

[Tristan]

The mum of one of the protester's, Cressida, speaks: https://x.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1815303865106883045

"This means we will she will not be present at her brother's wedding next summer..."

Can she even hear how ridiculous she sounds???

Yeah I posted that earlier. I had some sympathy for the prison sentence - especially one of that length - but that complaint moved me straight into “go f.ck yourself” mode.

Yeah, part of me hopes that if they get their sentences reduced on appeal the judge sets her release date for the day after her brother’s wedding!

[Stranger Mouse]

Just Stop Oil at Heathrow

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 85086.html

[Stranger Mouse]

I missed this Roger Hallam after he was sentenced. It’s quite a screed but I’ll just have to post the link to xitter as it doesn’t appear to be on the Just Stop Oil site and I don’t want to do a ton of copypasta.

https://x.com/rogerhallamcs21/status/18 ... 50558?s=61

I was concerned about the length of his sentence but would consider life imprisonment for writing this shite totally proportional.

His crowdfunder is here if anyone is interested. He’s tweeted that his prison time depends on it.

https://chuffed.org/project/support-the ... conspiracy

[El Pollo Diablo]

Regardless of the arguments over sentencing, Roger Hallam is a total fucknugget. I don't know if anyone listened to his Political Thinking podcast interview with Nick Robinson, but it's one of very, very few I've had to turn off. It was unlistenable.