"Just stop oil"

Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,578
Location
Surrey
Yea sounds like they left out a few details there.

She is going to prison for vandalism, not protesting. After the law is done with them, there will be a bunch of civil cases most likely. They will be fighting and paying them forever.

Yes. **** just got real for them (again from last year). Apparently the group were shocked that they had criminal records after being found guilty of criminal activity.


Once released in December, conversations became even more charged, and Plummer felt galvanized by the shock amongst peers who realized that they were now a convicted criminal.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,816
Location
Oldham
If people can't smell that something is fishy with these groups and how the police deal with them have a look at this story.


We all saw them smashing the windows. But apparently the jury think if you have a cause they agree with then you can be found not guilty!?

I hope they have a retrial, though I doubt they will.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Dec 2002
Posts
2,370
If people can't smell that something is fishy with these groups and how the police deal with them have a look at this story.


We all saw them smashing the windows. But apparently the jury think if you have a cause they agree with then you can be found not guilty!?

I hope they have a retrial, though I doubt they will.


That is bizarre, clear evidence they caused £500k of criminal damage but are found not guilty, how does that work :confused: The other day I saw many people pointing out the hypocrisy of how the Met handled the Palestinian protesters jumping all over a war memorial in London, saying if it was a bunch of hooded white lads, it almost certainly would have had a remarkably different response from the police, resulting in them being arrested for "public disorder" or similar...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
8 Dec 2002
Posts
20,260
Location
North Yorkshire
The other day I saw many people pointing out the hypocrisy of how the Met handled the Palestinian protesters jumping all over a war memorial in London, saying if it was a bunch of hooded white lads, it almost certainly would have had a remarkably different response from the police, resulting in them being arrested for "public disorder" or similar...
I would argue that is called applying common sense to a high profile situation and trying not escalate the situation any further.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,824
Location
Lincs
If people can't smell that something is fishy with these groups and how the police deal with them have a look at this story.


We all saw them smashing the windows. But apparently the jury think if you have a cause they agree with then you can be found not guilty!?

I hope they have a retrial, though I doubt they will.

How did the police deal with these people differently?
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Dec 2002
Posts
2,370
I would argue that is called applying common sense to a high profile situation and trying not escalate the situation any further.

So the law shouldn't be objective anymore, it should be applied differently depending on the colour of your skin and/or your political beliefs? That's a slippery slope and shouldn't be how the law works. The law should be applied by the police equally to every person in the UK.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,824
Location
Lincs
That is bizarre, clear evidence they caused £500k of criminal damage but are found not guilty, how does that work :confused: The other day I saw many people pointing out the hypocrisy of how the Met handled the Palestinian protesters jumping all over a war memorial in London, saying if it was a bunch of hooded white lads, it almost certainly would have had a remarkably different response from the police, resulting in them being arrested for "public disorder" or similar...

If there were 300,000 hooded white lads having a protest and some of them jumped all over a war memorial, I would have imagined the police would have acted the same way.

If it was a few beered up lads on a Friday night, then sure, the Police would probably act differently, but not for the reasons being insinuated.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Dec 2002
Posts
20,260
Location
North Yorkshire
So the law shouldn't be objective anymore, it should be applied differently depending on the colour of your skin and/or your political beliefs? That's a slippery slope and shouldn't be how the law works. The law should be applied by the police equally to every person in the UK.
That not exactly what I said now is it :p I never mention skin colour or any type of beliefs. If you have 2 people protesting about X on a memorial and you ask them to stop a few times if they don’t arrest them let them calm down and release them with fixed fine or something.

Take the same scenario but say 200 people are protesting, arresting them all is likely to inflame the situation and make things worse. Not everything is binary in the world.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Dec 2002
Posts
2,370
That not exactly what I said now is it :p I never mention skin colour or any type of beliefs. If you have 2 people protesting about X on a memorial and you ask them to stop a few times if they don’t arrest them let them calm down and release them with fixed fine or something.

Take the same scenario but say 200 people are protesting, arresting them all is likely to inflame the situation and make things worse. Not everything is binary in the world.

I agree with what you’re saying in terms of the personal safety of the officers on the ground. However, what I’m referring to is the explicit and official statement from the Met that followed, which said that it wasn’t illegal and no crime had been committed. In the alternative scenario there’d be mug shots all over the media and they’d be found and arrested by the police and made an example of. The same concept applies here, the legal system is going easy on environmental protesters for political reasons, the police are either too afraid to do anything or don’t want to.

Britain in 2023: it’s perfectly legal to cause £500k of criminal damage and to jump on war memorials over armistice day. There’s something in the water, I swear :D
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,824
Location
Lincs
Britain in 2023: it’s perfectly legal to cause £500k of criminal damage

Not according to the police or CPS, hence they were charged and in court for it.

The verdict is down to the wonderful vagaries of the jury system, that have been present since jury's were invented.

The same concept applies here, the legal system is going easy on environmental protesters for political reasons,

Missed this bit, but they aren't are they. The legal system arrested and charged them. It was the public that let them off.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Dec 2002
Posts
2,370
Not according to the police or CPS, hence they were charged and in court for it.

The verdict is down to the wonderful vagaries of the jury system, that have been present since jury's were invented.

Yeah, that’s a fair comment, it’s the justice system which it fault in that case, not the police or CPS.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,816
Location
Oldham
I think in the case of predominantly white protest groups the old class prejudice comes out.

Many of these eco people seem to come from wealthy homes. So they get the benefit of doubt.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,932
A few sanctimonious jury members support vandalism over justice and pat themselves on the back whilst doing so no doubt.

Yup, strange verdicts like this, backlog in the court system and we still don't update that system. There's some real status quo bias around having a jury, plenty of European countries manage to do things way more efficiently but we carry on with that system.

How are you supposed to have a complex fraud case when Karen the bar manager who struggles with sorting out her staff shift rota each week is supposed to vote on the "truth" of the matter?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
If people can't smell that something is fishy with these groups and how the police deal with them have a look at this story.


We all saw them smashing the windows. But apparently the jury think if you have a cause they agree with then you can be found not guilty!?

I hope they have a retrial, though I doubt they will.
I don't agree with causing criminal damage, but it would appear that the people of the land do not support the inaction of our leaders on the issue.

Perhaps the idea is that if one takes as a fact that inaction on climate will literally kill us all, then a smashed window or two is the least of our worries.

Again, I'm not one for smashing windows or throwing paint. It's mindless vandalism.

But it would appear that the people are trying to send a message to our leaders, and the deliberate bending and breaking of the rules is seen as a way of doing this. It's not like we can directly influence our leaders most of the time. We can choose between the Red Tories or the Blue Tories, but once in power they do whatever the hell big business tells them to.

In that world, the tools available to the plebs to send a message is: civil disobedience and... civil disobedience.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,401
Location
5 degrees starboard
I don't agree with causing criminal damage, but it would appear that the people of the land do not support the inaction of our leaders...

In that world, the tools available to the plebs to send a message is: civil disobedience and... civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition;

Somehow smashing the place up does not equal civil disobedience
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Civil disobedience, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition;

Somehow smashing the place up does not equal civil disobedience
The jury finding them not guilty when they clearly are (beyond *any* doubt) would qualify as civil disobedience, no?
 
Back
Top Bottom