"Just stop oil"

[darkgen]

I don't see what the issue is here at all. These jokers coordinated and then executed multiple actions which potentially disrupted 10s of thousands of the general public going about their day with varying degrees of impact. Sentences in that context seems reasonable and puts on notice others who think such actions are legitimate. They are not.

Want change? Vote Green / other parties or stand up your own political movement which shares your ideology and bring people with you.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I don't see what the issue is here at all. These jokers coordinated and then executed multiple actions which potentially disrupted 10s of thousands of the general public going about their day with varying degrees of impact. Sentences in that context seems reasonable and puts on notice others who think such actions are legitimate. They are not.

By this logic, Mick Lynch should be serving 3 whole life terms at this point.

 

[PlacidCasual]

By this logic, Mick Lynch should be serving 3 whole life terms at this point.

A concept that would unite the country like no other

 

[darkgen]

By this logic, Mick Lynch should be serving 3 whole life terms at this point.

Strike applications are legal. So my logic stands I'm afraid.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Strike applications are legal. So my logic stands I'm afraid.

Only because the law says one is legal and the Torries past another to say the other isn’t.

The impact of one days trains strikes is orders of magnitude higher than a few orange people walking up the M25 for a few hours.

All I’m saying is that you guys support the JSO oil people going to prison because you don’t support their cause. If it was a cause you did support, your stance would be completely different.

To be clear, I don’t support JSO’s actions, nor do I support the laws passed by the Torries which absolutely do impinge on people’s general right to protest and is something which absolutely could be abused by a future authoritarian government.

A concept that would unite the country like no other

I really don’t think it would. The only reasons unions exist in this country is because of a complete failure of employee, employer relations and the general race to the bottom. If employers engaged with their staff honestly and treated their staff fairly, they wouldn’t need to unionise.

 

[darkgen]

Only because the law says one is legal and the Torries past another to say the other isn’t.

The impact of one days trains strikes is orders of magnitude higher than a few orange people walking up the M25 for a few hours.

All I’m saying is that you guys support the JSO oil people going to prison because you don’t support their cause. If it was a cause you did support, your stance would be completely different.

To be clear, I don’t support JSO’s actions, nor do I support the laws passed by the Torries which absolutely do impinge on people’s general right to protest and is something which absolutely could be abused by a future authoritarian government.


I really don’t think it would. The only reasons unions exist in this country is because of a complete failure of employee, employer relations and the general race to the bottom. If employers engaged with their staff honestly and treated their staff fairly, they wouldn’t need to unionise.

The law is the law. I don't make the rules up! Don't like them? Vote for a party that better suits your ideology and legal stance. For the record, I despise industrial action, especially so on the transport network which impact is wholly disproportionate to the general public.

 

[PlacidCasual]

I really don’t think it would. The only reasons unions exist in this country is because of a complete failure of employee, employer relations and the general race to the bottom. If employers engaged with their staff honestly and treated their staff fairly, they wouldn’t need to unionise.

It was a light hearted comment in a GD thread. Chill. Whilst I don't agree with a word you said above I absolutely approve of unions and the right to strike, but rarely in living memory have UK unions been the force for good they should have been.

 

[Maple Leaf]

Being sat in a prison cell for a few years to think about their life choices is literally the only thing that will stop some of them.

You may not agree with their methods but they clearly care about a good cause. Most people are selfish and would never put themselves at risk of violence or prosecution in order to try to fight for something which does not directly benefit them. Therefore, it's rather ignorant to condemn their "life choices" as if they are drug addicts or benefit fraudsters.

Also, I find it ridiculous that at a time when the government is having to release prisoners after 40% of their sentences, due to the prisons overflowing, that non-violent environmental protesters (with no other criminal history) are being sent to prison for record sentences of 5 years.

 

[dowie]

The impact of one days trains strikes is orders of magnitude higher than a few orange people walking up the M25 for a few hours.

All I’m saying is that you guys support the JSO oil people going to prison because you don’t support their cause. If it was a cause you did support, your stance would be completely different.

No, those are very different scenarios, you've missed a key fundamental difference here and come to a flawed conclusion.

Not turning up at work or striking (as the RMT sometimes do) is perfectly legal and it's up to their employer to fix, no one is stopping some trains from running operated by people not on strike.

Similarly threatening to quit your job at an opportune moment (which might have significant costs) and asking for a raise is fundamentally different to threatening to reveal your boss's affair and asking for a rise.

Invoking your right to quit or to not do something (overtime, on call, turn up on X day etc.) is different to actively blocking/disrupting/breaking things.

You may not agree with their methods but they clearly care about a good cause. Most people are selfish and would never put themselves at risk of violence or prosecution in order to try to fight for something which does not directly benefit them. Therefore, it's rather ignorant to condemn their "life choices" as if they are drug addicts or benefit fraudsters.

We're living in a democracy, not a dictatorship, if they want to choose this self-indulgent path where they get to LARP as heroes who are bravely fighting their imaginary fight by just being a complete pest to the rest of society then they're going to have to accept the consequences of their actions.

Sadly they don't seem to be prepared to admit that they're wilfully breaking the law for a righteous cause even, in fact, they tried to weasel out of it and attempt some sort of jury nullification thing and it backfired thus the sentences:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813979456434061513

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813980073273479648

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Indeed, it's not like they gave anyone any notice of their "protest".
Union Strikes have to give 14 days notice to allow mitigations and notifications. As such the public impact can be minimised. It is also, as pointed out above, LEGAL.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Me and the wife watch countless crime tv programmes and see absolute scrotes get away with some really bad stuff, we all want JSO punishing but 5 and 4 years is a joke compared to the stuff we watch.

 

[Hagar]

Me and the wife watch countless crime tv programmes and see absolute scrotes get away with some really bad stuff, we all want JSO punishing but 5 and 4 years is a joke compared to the stuff we watch.

It is not a comparison. Judges sentence on what they see from the prosecution and defence in court and of course from the defendants following the verdict from the jury. Within statutory guidelines. There is no "well this crime is worse than that one and lesser than this, so it must be x."

Because these are educated scrotes and possibly quite personable does not mitigate against the potential for harm, actual harm that they have caused. In addition they tried to subvert the court process, not likely to impress.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

It is not a comparison. Judges sentence on what they see from the prosecution and defence in court and of course from the defendants following the verdict from the jury. Within statutory guidelines. There is no "well this crime is worse than that one and lesser than this, so it must be x."

Of course it's a comparison. Crimes do get classified as being worse than one, less serious than another. Manslaughter is not the same as murder.

 

[Moley]

Of course it's a comparison. Crimes do get classified as being worse than one, less serious than another. Manslaughter is not the same as murder.

But is does fall into the same category of crime, so comparing the two is reasonable - whereas comparing manslaughter to conspiracy to commit a public nuisance wouldn't be.

 

[wildman]

Of course it's a comparison. Crimes do get classified as being worse than one, less serious than another. Manslaughter is not the same as murder.

what about theft or fraud, if i defraud a supermarket out of a few quid by not scaning all my bananas on the self checkout, is that the same as if I pretend I can deliver a public service, defraud the taxpayers and then bugger off ? I am thinking PPE scandal here, somehow all those lords get let off, but billy maggo who is struggling to feed his kids will do a stretch for nicking baby formula from tesco.

yes thas a ridiculous comparisson for many, but it's reality.

 

[Rroff]

what about theft or fraud, if i defraud a supermarket out of a few quid by not scaning all my bananas on the self checkout, is that the same as if I pretend I can deliver a public service, defraud the taxpayers and then bugger off ? I am thinking PPE scandal here, somehow all those lords get let off, but billy maggo who is struggling to feed his kids will do a stretch for nicking baby formula from tesco.

yes thas a ridiculous comparisson for many, but it's reality.

It shouldn't be such a ridiculous comparison - one company for example got around £650million of tax payer money for delivering PPE and related, delivered less than £60million worth of services, and there will probably be no repercussions for that. (And one of the companies dumping millions worth in orders of equipment which was either unsuitable or poor quality).

 

[Hotwired]

what about theft or fraud, if i defraud a supermarket out of a few quid by not scaning all my bananas on the self checkout, is that the same as if I pretend I can deliver a public service, defraud the taxpayers and then bugger off ? I am thinking PPE scandal here, somehow all those lords get let off, but billy maggo who is struggling to feed his kids will do a stretch for nicking baby formula from tesco.

yes thas a ridiculous comparisson for many, but it's reality.

You sure there's someone doing prison time for nicking baby formula from tesco.

Cos I have enormous doubts given that the only thing a shoplifter has to do is drop everything and walk out if anyone notices.

 

[Rroff]

You sure there's someone doing prison time for nicking baby formula from tesco.

Cos I have enormous doubts given that the only thing a shoplifter has to do is drop everything and walk out if anyone notices.

Unless it is like £200 or whatever, I can't remember exactly, they rarely even bother prosecuting them any more

 

[dowie]

Me and the wife watch countless crime tv programmes and see absolute scrotes get away with some really bad stuff, we all want JSO punishing but 5 and 4 years is a joke compared to the stuff we watch.

But that seems more like a problem with letting the other scrotes off lightly.

It doesn't follow that because we didn't punish some other people appropriately there is something wrong with punishing these people properly.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I am thinking PPE scandal here, somehow all those lords get let off, but billy maggo who is struggling to feed his kids will do a stretch for nicking baby formula from tesco.

That double standard has existed for centuries:

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back

— Anonymous, 1821