JSO got what, 6 years? Let’s see what the rightoid loons get.
5 years for one of them IIRC, although their case was more complicated than Reddit/Lemmy comments often state. Reddit/Lemmy often says they got 5 years for peacefully protesting, however:
-
the protestors affected emergency services
-
the protesters were repeat offenders
-
the protesters said they are glad they broke the law
-
the protester who got the longest sentence was in contempt of court and got arrested again during the court case
-
the protestor who got the longest sentence was continually rude to the judge and constantly tried to create drama in the courtroom, generally a terrible idea.
-
the protester who got the longest sentence said he would commit more crimes, he would never stop, and he couldn’t wait to get out there and commit more crimes.
-
the protestor who got the longest sentence said, about an ambulance that got stuck in the traffic jam that he conspired to cause, that he’d rather the patients in ambulances die than let a single ambulance through
5 years is a long time, but at the same time, wtf did he expect to happen? The judge to say “oh cool mate, go on now, leave my courtroom and commit more crimes. Boys will be boys! What a little scallywag!”? He left the judge with little choice but to come down on him hard.
Goes without saying that I want the thugs arrested, of course. But let’s not misrepresent the JSO trial.
E: People you can disagree with the length of the sentence, or think that the protestors are good, without trying to suppress the facts of the court case. Even when I disagree with something, I don’t go around peddling misinformation about it.
Literally Jorjor Well
the protestors affected emergency services
Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.
the protesters were repeat offenders
Based.
the protesters said they are glad they broke the law
Based.
the protester who got the longest sentence was in contempt of court and got arrested again during the court case
Based.
the protestor who got the longest sentence was continually rude to the judge and constantly tried to create drama in the courtroom, generally a terrible idea.
Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.
the protester who got the longest sentence said he would commit more crimes, he would never stop, and he couldn’t wait to get out there and commit more crimes.
Unreal, I don’t even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.
Saying Based isn’t a counter argument. Please come up with some of your own opinions and demonstrate how you arrived at them or shut the hell up.
You’re as bad as the thugs, you let somebody else tell you what your opinion should be and you don’t actually know why they’re your opinions, because you’ve just absorbed them from the ether, and did not arrive at them on your own, so you just shout at people without any idea about why you’re angry at them. Grow up.
Idk what to say? Corporate terrorists who shit up our planet from oil execs to their political lackeys all deserve to be put to the sword. Someone bringing attention to that in a legal system that serves capitalist interests in such a brazen, dedicated fashion is a hero of mine.
This is my original opinion I’ve come to over many years from being a dedicated establishment defender concerned with “civility” and broadly unaware of the concept of negative peace that serves the purpose of denying justice to those affected, then to moderate “shit sucks but neither side is right” to now radicalized, and I know exactly why my opinion is that way - it is witnessing the collapse of this country in real time that got me to open my eyes to the fact things here are run by thieves who steal from us all tangibly and less so, from the landleeches who leech off labour when we have enough excess housing to house everyone right now, literally solving homelessness, to the oil execs who leech off our very planet - a planet that it’s very hard to argue does not belong to all of us, and when the system fails to account for this it is a failed system, and thus direct action outside of the justice system run by and for those same thieves is almost always justified - nay - morally required.
I have to agree with you. I’ve tried my best to get on board with how the system functions, the outcomes it produces and forgive its flaws but it just doesn’t reflect my values. Apart from the physical destruction its causing, tolerating a system which is working against you like that for long enough just crushes your spirit. Accepting that I oppose it is liberating.
I found it much easier to cope with the world when I acknowledged that the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Sounds cynical, but I have found a lot of comfort in solidarity with people who feel similarly, and that gives me more hope than I have felt in years.
To me it’s kind of the opposite. The realization that yes the system is rigged in this way only makes it seem more powerful and everlasting.
I’ve heard others say that too. It definitely removes chaos and chance from equation. I recently heard a former Australian PM asked how to get power and he said that it’s just a case of being a small faction and capturing a mainstream political party. Somehow that made it click with me how things are up for grabs if you are willing to accept the system as it is and exploit it, rather than completely rejecting it.
Personal opinion isn’t relevant here, that’s what you do not sit here to understand.
The sentence they got was based on the things they did and the way they conducted themselves in the courtroom. You cannot complain that their sentences were too long without also accepting that they hold some responsibility for the length of their own sentences. Whether you believe that’s moral or not is utterly irrelevant.
Actually it’s the only thing that’s relevant. In your opinion legal = good and well-behaved=good, but not in mine.
If a system like ours denies change and justice, then it doesn’t deserve people cowtowing before it.
Real justice is about the why, and the broader context as much as it is about the what. A ransomware gang in Russia stealing from grandma is obviously not the same as a single mother stealing formula to feed her child. By your logic If the mother is upset and doesn’t think highly of the system, she gets a stricter sentence. Needless to say - this is absurd.
I feel like this is morality 101, no offense. I doubt you actually believe that context shouldn’t matter, but that’s how it comes off.
Needless to say, I think the sentencing should take into account not how you ‘conducted yourself’ but why you did what you did. I’ll agree that we disagree.
No it’s not my opinion. Your problem is that you think that everyone is fighting you, well they are not, we’re just pointing out that personal beliefs are not the same as legal truth. I just don’t like disingenuous people who seem to think that because you want something to be the case it actually is the case.
Whether I like the law or not or whether you like the law or not isn’t relevant. You can’t break the law and expect anything other than prison time and fines, just because you think you have some moral authority. It’s not my problem if you don’t like it.
The law only applies to people I disagree with.
I am definitely a person who should be taken seriously
/s
Except I didn’t say that did I so that kind of defeats your little argument.
The law applies to everyone. You just don’t like the law which is different.
Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.
You can’t be serious. People purposely blocking a motorway that’s critical for emergency services are less at fault for blocking emergency services than a person in a car or bus in your eyes?
Based.
That’s not a legal defence.
Based.
Dunno why you replied to the same line twice, but see above.
the protesters said they are glad they broke the law
See above.
Based.
See above. And no, being in contempt of court isn’t based.
Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.
No it’s not based. It’s stupidity. Insulting the judge handling your trial is moronic.
And no, judges prosecuting people guilty of committing a crime, whether you believe the charge is worthy or not, isn’t a crime. It’s their job.
Unreal, I don’t even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.
Funny. I feel the opposite. I was sympathetic to him before I looked into the facts and saw how much of a moron he is. The disservice he’s doing to the climate debate is immense. I hope he has a good think about his actions while he’s in prison.
He literally said he wanted people in ambulances to die due to the traffic jam FFS.
And no, being in contempt of court isn’t based.
1984
“Breaking the law and getting arrested for it is literally 1984”
Do you even know what being in Contempt of Court is?
Do you think, for example, that not turning up to court shouldn’t go against you? Or purposely trying to derail the trial? Or defying court orders? Or disclosing details of an ongoing court case, risking the entire case being dismissed? We have laws for a reason.
I suppose you must love people like Tommy Robinson, who has on multiple occasions been charged with contempt of court? Is he “based”? Is it Orwellian to bring criminal charges to him?
You surely must be trolling.
I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.
I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.
Because the former’s views are racist vile shit, but the latter’s views are well intentioned calls for reform.
The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.
You literally just accused me of this and then you admit to actually it being your base belief structure. God you’re obnoxious.
I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.
That’s not how courts work, and it’s not how laws work. It shouldn’t be done based on feels.
I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.
They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?
Because the former’s views are racist vile shit, but the latter’s views are well intentioned calls for reform.
Killing people is fine?
The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.
You can’t just say “no the law shouldn’t apply to you because I like you”. That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.
My God you are utterly pathetic individual. You actually think that your personal opinion is the same as objective reality. Either you have an ego the size of a small continent or you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about.
I honestly suspect it to be the latter, your response to me was basically copy paste eco warrior bullshit. None of it has any real recognition of the challenges faced by changing, or any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement. All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don’t follow your belief structure.
I don’t actually really care that much about the climate and I’m pro-natural-exploitation so long as the spoils of it are shared evenly amongst the proletariat (present and future, so including some degree of preservation), but if some pathetic centrist system-defender wants to label me an eco-warrior I’ll wear it with pride.
challenges faced by changing
Aww, profits go down? What a shame. Degrowth would be such a bad thing what will I do without the AI crypto meta verse being made in 2 years :(
any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement.
A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise of a rapist being allowed to “rape a little bit” lmao it is an acknowledgment that one party is 100% right, and the other is absolutely fucking wrong.
All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don’t follow your belief structure.
I don’t really care if you don’t believe this shit, I think you should consider it, my zealous advocatry for one side I believe is right is not a moral condemnation of opposing and especially not more moderate-but-broadly-in-agreement individuals, it is a condemnation of the system.
The le evil socialists that comprise little more than half of Gen-Z in the UK aren’t out to get some slobby middle manager’s Toyota Camry, he’s just part of a system, they’re there for those who embezzled billions to actively enforce the system.
A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise
If you have to descend to erroneously equating the situation to rape then you’ve lost the argument. You cannot rely on an emotional response to an intellectual exercise it’s not only dishonest it’s also unhelpful.
The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition. We can’t all go back to living in caves that wouldn’t work, we can’t sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don’t really understand what you want here.
I would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don’t believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle. Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.
Based
The way you reply to comments is not endearing you to anybody.
If being rude to the judge means you get more prison time then you’re already so far down the rabbit hole you need to rebel. That’s straight out of the authoritarian handbook.
And a repeat offender of hanging from road signs? Really? Oh no. The world is ending.
You guys are grasping at straws here. They weren’t even the ones to stop traffic. They were above it all holding signs. You’re blaming them for the actions of the state that’s massively over reacted on their punishment. In other words, victim blaming.
Well if he was rude he should clearly get excommunicated if not defenestrated.
/s
Don’t be such a fuckwit.
I personally believe deliberately blocking ambulances, then saying you want the patient inside to die to be a bad thing.
But if you want them to die as well, then you’re welcome to that opinion.
-
No it’s alright you see because Our Tommeh said was for Our Countreh.
There’s a lot of simmering anger, resentment and frustration in many communities in this country. It’s been building for years. The stabbing of those poor girls at their dance class by the son of Rwandan immigrants seems to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
This isn’t just the EDL (an organisation which disbanded more than a decade ago), this is thousands of English people who are furious. We can try and understand the sources of that fury, and then begin the work to resolve it, or we’ll keep getting these sorts of horrid outbreaks of ugly violence.
We don’t know the details yet. But, if this stabber was a white kid, we’d all be talking about mental health. Non-white kids of immigrants can also have mental health issue. But the worse of the country jump straight to racism, blaming the culture of the immigrant. If this lad grew up here, he has been surrounded by our culture. If there is mental health issues, it’s our fault it wasn’t caught in time. If he went mental for cultural reasons, we can’t wash our hands of that either. If we want assimilation, we can’t other people.
Well said.
Thank you. I expected to be download badly. Nice to be wrong about that.
People imagining something awful for years will be triggered when it finally (allegedly) happens but their fears are ultimately based on fearmongering.
Plenty of people are scared of the two assasinations of MPs by right wing lunatics.
Or that mosque pipe bombing Or lots of other things that happen over and over because of these problematic communities you mention. Do we really need to understand the hate and intolerance to punish it? I don’t think soPlenty of people are scared of the two assasinations of MPs by right wing lunatics.
One of them was a far-right lunatic, but the man who assassinated David Amess was a London-born radicalised Muslim affiliated with ISIL
Fair point, although I’d consider islamic extremism to be pretty far right. It’s just a different branch of far right to the BNP/EDL-style nationalism.
I think bundling the two together obscures more than it illuminates. I don’t think it’s any less serious (in fact in some regards it’s more dangerous), just that it doesn’t fit with normal far-right characteristics. To take one important difference, the far-right are ultra-nationalists, while Islamic fundamentalists are strictly anti-nationalist – they don’t recognise the legitimacy of nation-states to exist at all. They also tend to be pretty unconcerned with race or ethnicity in themselves, whereas that’s obviously a major thing for Neo-Nazis and other Fascists. And it makes it harder to identify and address the problem, because the sources and drivers of far-right extremism are separate and often unrelated to the sources of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalisation.
That’s true. When I see “far right terrorism” it certainly conjures images in my mind of nationalist terrorism, despite islamic terrorism literally, by definition, being right wing.
It’s probably indeed better to say “islamic terrorism” if you want to avoid ambiguity. Personally I think we should apply the same treatment to nationalist terrorism, but I think the boat has sailed on that one.
despite islamic terrorism literally, by definition, being right wing.
It’s neither right-wing nor left-wing. This sort of claim always strikes me as fairly cheap politics by people on the left. ‘When people do bad things it’s right-wing, when they do good things it’s left-wing.’ etc
Nope. You’ve lost me there.
It’s neither right-wing nor left-wing.
They’re conservative religious views. Of course it’s right wing. Same as conservative Christians in the US or Uganda, or the Hindu nationalism we see in India.
This sort of claim always strikes me as fairly cheap politics by people on the left.
I disagree. It’s just calling a spade a spade.
From the Wikipedia summary on far-right politics, which I found to be a fair description:
“Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.”
“Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.”
“Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.”
Seems to me that islamism lines up with that very well.
'When people do bad things it’s right-wing, when they do good things it’s left-wing.’ etc
Respectfully, that’s not true.
You find very, very few people who call Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc right wing. Far less than you see far-right people trundle out the tired “Nazis were left wing because National Socialists” nonsense.
It’s a fair point, thanks for the correction.
Not sure how I got the wrong impression, probably heard he’d been killed for being too woke or something.
For a lot of people they voted for Brexit for lower immigration even when people said it would be bad for the economy. Instead they got more immigration from the third world.
Consistently for decades the British have wanted less immigration and instead got more.
Surprised it has taken this long really.
Woah. You okay there UK? Hang in there man, and stay safe.
Eh, we could be doing better, but at least now we’ve got a sensible sounding government.
Don’t worry about this, race riots happen every 20 years or so. The previous one was much bigger.
I think people are really stupid to have a response like this to social media rumours and lies.
Well, it’s not just that. This species is a dead end.
