There are no beautiful surfaces without a terrible depth, Nietzsche said. Credit: Getty

Love him or hate him, you have to accept that Emmanuel Macron has an extraordinary capacity for thinking and talking.
The French President’s vast interview with the Financial Times last week won headlines largely because of his warning of a possible “unravelling of the European Union”.
That was just a tiny part of it. Macron speaks (and speaks and speaks) sometimes eloquently, sometimes pompously, always thoughtfully. His subjects are Covid-19, globalism, democracy, climate change, fear, humanity, sovereignty, multilateralism, Africa and the absolute necessity for the EU to support its most fragile members through the greatest crisis of our lifetimes.
If I had to sum up Macron’s argument in a few words, it would be these: there is no going back to the world before 2020. If we in the West want to preserve those things that we value most — democracy, openness, some level of prosperity, the environment — we must learn the lessons of Covid-19 and do things differently: more manufacturing close to home; more focus on people, less on finance; more national and European sovereignty; better, not less, multilateral or international cooperation.
“That’s where I find myself,” said Macron. “Ready to fight and promote what I believe in while remaining available to try and comprehend what seemed unthinkable.”
It’s easy to mock such stuff. I once coined the word “Macronsplaining” to describe the young French president’s ability to talk endlessly on any subject pitched at him (like “Just a Minute” on Radio 4 except that Macron never finishes inside 60 seconds).
But all the same, Macron is extraordinary. Compare his willingness, and ability, to wrestle intellectually with the greatest crisis of our lifetimes with Donald Trump’s ignorance, narcissism and bluster; Boris Johnson’s evasive eloquence; and even Angela Merkel’s belief that Germany’s rigid, pre-Covid approach to Europe can be re-assembled Humpty-Dumpty-like without change.
I spoke to a senior member of Macron’s La République en Marche (LREM) party. He says that the French president is, if anything, less calm in private, and more apocalyptic, than he appeared in his FT interview.
“He is rather angry and even scared at what may come next,” the ally said. “He fears that, if the crisis is prolonged, we are heading into a period of profound political and economic instability.”
“There will be a boulevard for populists, on both the far Right and the far Left — anti-foreign arguments, anti-European arguments, anti-global arguments. But he also believes that, with care, there will be a great hunger for stability and reassurance, a desire for proven leaders and rejection of further disruption.”
In other words, Macron may be an intellectual or a revolutionary-in-a-suit but he has learned to think like a politician. He is worried not just about the world’s future — but also his own.
The next French presidential election is two years away. In April-May 2022, France is likely to be still suffering the economic, and maybe even the health, consequences of Covid-19.
By “thinking the unthinkable”, Macron is trying to map the landscape of the post-viral world. He is also trying to extend the opportunist run of luck which made him President of the Republic in his late thirties — a run which had faltered before the coronovirus knocked the world off its axis.
In 2016-7 Macron “rode the wave” by spotting the opportunity offered by his boss, President François Hollande’s unpopularity and launching his own political career and party at the age of 38. Now he wants to climb aboard the post-Covid bandwagon, rather than be crushed by it.
“I’ve always relied on destiny,” he says at the end of the FT interview. “And deep down that’s the simplest thing to do. We must always be available for destiny.”
You can read that two ways — the arrogance of a man who is willing to abandon previous certainties to remain in power; or the intelligence and agility of a man who is willing to think ahead in the midst of an unprecedented crisis.
All the Macron achievements of the past three years — and there are many — look likely to be dwarfed or ruined by Covid-19. French unemployment had fallen sharply for the first time in a decade; there are suddenly nine million people on a temporary unemployment scheme (the most generous of its kind in the world with state funding of 80% of net salaries). How many of those jobs will survive the crisis?
All the main features of Macronomics have been made redundant or politically damaging.
The President who brought state spending under control? That is no longer much of a sales pitch when the French health service, despite its generous funding, has struggled to cope with the C-19 crisis.
The President who made French labour laws more flexible to allow France to thrive in a global world? That offers few advantages if globalism is to be rolled back.
The President who promised a stronger European Union and a robust Eurozone capable of surviving great crises? That will be an electoral curse if Covid-19 splits the EU-27.
Macron, as he points out in the interview, has always argued for European industrial and economic “sovereignty” to avoid Chinese and American domination in a global world. He can argue that this, at least, has proved correct.
That, however, is not the Macron portrayed by domestic opponents of Right and Left, who paint him as a “neo-liberal” or “ultra-capitalist” who does the bidding of his puppet-masters in “global finance”.
Macron 2020 is finding ways to abandon or recreate Macron 2017. He gropes towards a new definition of Macronomics. He calls for a new leap towards European unity and a new multilateral world order.
He is clear on Europe — “we are at a moment of truth”, either the EU becomes “more than a market” or it will cease to exist.
Much rides for Macron on the EU leaders’ summit tomorrow. He angered the Germans and Dutch by saying that mutually guaranteed European debt to help Italy, Spain and others post-crisis was the “only solution” to save the EU from populism and nationalism.
This is not the first time that Macron has appeared to undermine his own position by making dramatic public threats of this kind. If the Germans and Dutch reject the Macron ideas, he will be left looking weak and foolish.
The EU being the EU, the outcome this week will probably be neither black nor white. Other EU aid plans will be agreed and the French idea for a temporary system of mutual bonds will be carried over for discussion once the worst of the crisis is over. A Macron victory? He will spin it that way.
On the other questions, he was at his most vague and waffling but at least had the “humility” (a word that crops up a dozen times) to admit it.
“So I believe there will be some major anthropological changes which I am unable to describe, and I say this with a lot of humility, but there will be profound ones, I am sure … I believe that we are about to exit a world which was hyper-financialised … [but] there are some elements of global interdependence which force us to rethink a true governance and therefore multilateralism.”
Hmm. That needs a little more work, Monsieur le Président.
In his television address to the French nation last Monday, Macron also spoke of the need for a “re-founding” of traditional political ideas and arguments, starting with his own.
“We have been reminded of how vulnerable we are. Perhaps we had forgotten. Don’t let us say that this proves everything that we said before…We must abandon our well-trodden paths and ideologies and re-invent ourselves — me first and foremost.”
He went on to say that he planned to contact “all strands of our nation” in the weeks ahead to consider what such a “new foundation” might involve. This was interpreted in the French media as a Macron plan for a “government of national unity” — a phrase that he never used.
Sources close to the President suggest nonetheless that he might dissolve the government and appoint a new Prime Minister for a “rebuilding” phase after the worst of the crisis is over. Macron’s generally good relationship with his ex centre-Right prime minister, Edouard Philippe, has broken down in recent weeks. There have been “moments of tension” (English translation: “slanging matches”) when Macron accused the government of being too slow or incompetent.
In public opinion polls, both Macron and Philippe have received modest personal boosts but 32% of French people in an Opinonway survey last weekend said that they “distrusted” the government’s handling of the crisis, compared with 8% in Britain.
Given the US and UK governments’ greater evasions and mis-steps, this may seem rather unfair. But France is France, a country quick to blame and slow to praise.
Macron and his government have made mistakes. They were one or two weeks late in imposing a lockdown. They failed to provide sufficient tests and masks and were misleading about the reasons.
But they were very quick to introduce generous economic support for business and individuals. Thanks to rapid thinking and innovation, such as the use of medicalised high-speed trains to take gravely ill patients to less-affected parts of the country, the health system has more or less coped.
The demand for intensive care treatment, initially forecast at 14,500 places, reached 7,000 beds in early April but has since been falling back steadily. The number of deaths in France is following a somewhat lower curve than Italy or Spain. The mortality figures announced daily (now totalling 20,000) are more or less complete, including a grim toll in care homes (unlike the partial figures issued in some other countries).
Macron’s hopes of surviving the crisis politically have perhaps also been boosted by the lamentable performance of his principal likely rival in 2022, the far-right leader, Marine Le Pen. She has said everything and its opposite since the crisis began. Her confidence rating, never high, has fallen.
All the same, new times will create new politics and maybe new, unexpected challengers (as Macron was in 2016-7).
According to the senior ally I spoke to, President Macron knows that he must re-invent himself if he is to win a second term in 2022. He wants to be able to say that he, before others, grasped that life can never be quite the same again.
“If you look at our the last five presidents before Macron, only two were re-elected, Mitterrand and Chirac, and they both re-made themselves constantly,” the senior LREM figure said.
“Both Giscard and Sarkozy fell victim in part to global crises (the first oil shock and the 2008 financial crisis). They proved unable to re-invent themselves. Macron has at least understood that necessity. Will people buy it? I’m not so sure.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf a group of protestors went to the same place and did the same thing, but were – say – urging the government to deport everyone who hadn’t been born in the UK, would they be allowed to explain their beliefs to the court for four hours?
Exactly, the regime permits protest groups that they have common cause with. Just Stop Oil and BLM are pushing against an open door. Compare their treatment with Tommy Robinson’s etc.
The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.
Covid?
In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?
Have you? May I ask.
As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.
Idiotic objection. We have a political class openly intent – through Net Zero – on the deliberate destruction of our liberty and living standards but you, presumably, don’t want anyone to refer to them in draconian terms until they’ve actually succeeded?
Grow up.
Covid?
In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?
Have you? May I ask.
As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.
Idiotic objection. We have a political class openly intent – through Net Zero – on the deliberate destruction of our liberty and living standards but you, presumably, don’t want anyone to refer to them in draconian terms until they’ve actually succeeded?
Grow up.
I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.
And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups
Are you the author of this article?
He is not!
He is not!
The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.
I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.
And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups
Are you the author of this article?
You’re allowing self-pity to cloud your thinking. You’re failing to distinguish between (i) illegal actions in support of a legal cause (such as helping the environment) and (ii) illegal actions in support of an illegal cause (such as Nazi-style deportation policies).
You do appreciate the distinction, don’t you? Although the amount of upticks suggest that there are lots of folks with an over-developed sense of ideological self-pity lol.
Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.
Oh, good, someone answers me by talking about Nazis.
You know nothing about my opinion of Just Stop Oil or of immigration policy.
The hypothetical about immigration policy was intended, of course, to contrast *illegal* protests in support of a “left-wing’ cause and a “right-wing” cause. A democratically elected government could pass legitimate legislation to deport all foreign-born residents (or at least those who had not already been granted permanent residency). Again, I say nothing about whether I think that would be good legislation or bad, but it could be perfectly legal.
The nazis actions caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. According to the doom goblin’s predictions five years ago, the earth should be barren and all life destroyed right now.
Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.
Oh, good, someone answers me by talking about Nazis.
You know nothing about my opinion of Just Stop Oil or of immigration policy.
The hypothetical about immigration policy was intended, of course, to contrast *illegal* protests in support of a “left-wing’ cause and a “right-wing” cause. A democratically elected government could pass legitimate legislation to deport all foreign-born residents (or at least those who had not already been granted permanent residency). Again, I say nothing about whether I think that would be good legislation or bad, but it could be perfectly legal.
The nazis actions caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. According to the doom goblin’s predictions five years ago, the earth should be barren and all life destroyed right now.
Exactly, the regime permits protest groups that they have common cause with. Just Stop Oil and BLM are pushing against an open door. Compare their treatment with Tommy Robinson’s etc.
You’re allowing self-pity to cloud your thinking. You’re failing to distinguish between (i) illegal actions in support of a legal cause (such as helping the environment) and (ii) illegal actions in support of an illegal cause (such as Nazi-style deportation policies).
You do appreciate the distinction, don’t you? Although the amount of upticks suggest that there are lots of folks with an over-developed sense of ideological self-pity lol.
If a group of protestors went to the same place and did the same thing, but were – say – urging the government to deport everyone who hadn’t been born in the UK, would they be allowed to explain their beliefs to the court for four hours?
The problem is that Just Stop Oil are religiously ideological in their outlook. They believe so fervently that the world is coming to an end that any action is justified. Their lack of doubt makes it impossible deal with them at a logical level – true believers become fanatics. The only thing we can do is protect the public from them, unless they accept that there must be some balance and duty to the public in their actions. Them having reasoning is not helping because they refuse to accept counter-arguments.
Which makes their being permitted 4 hours to talk about Global warming extremely dubious as they’re not prepared to listen to any reasoned replies to what they say. And there is a very important reasoned reply – that despite what they probably claim, the evidence supporting what they say is by no means 100%, or even 98%, both of which figures I’ve heard, of the scientific community.
The common sense argument is simple: climate change may or may not kill millions of people. Net zero policies will definitely kill millions of people – and probably whilst having little or no effect on the climate. The common sense solution therefore is adaptation.
The common sense argument is simple: climate change may or may not kill millions of people. Net zero policies will definitely kill millions of people – and probably whilst having little or no effect on the climate. The common sense solution therefore is adaptation.
Which makes their being permitted 4 hours to talk about Global warming extremely dubious as they’re not prepared to listen to any reasoned replies to what they say. And there is a very important reasoned reply – that despite what they probably claim, the evidence supporting what they say is by no means 100%, or even 98%, both of which figures I’ve heard, of the scientific community.
The problem is that Just Stop Oil are religiously ideological in their outlook. They believe so fervently that the world is coming to an end that any action is justified. Their lack of doubt makes it impossible deal with them at a logical level – true believers become fanatics. The only thing we can do is protect the public from them, unless they accept that there must be some balance and duty to the public in their actions. Them having reasoning is not helping because they refuse to accept counter-arguments.
Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
Yes, if their protest is too disruptive. There’s a spectrum from peaceful protest, through disruptive protest, through to terrorist protest. At some point protest is so disruptive or damaging that the general public reasonably expect to be protected against it.
At last, a sane answer. Of course they will face criminal consequences, albeit minor. There will be a stain on a surface of a snooker table. In the grand scheme of things, not the most shocking offence a criminal court will ever have seen lol. Do keep things in perspective folks.
I don’t think they should be jailed, but they should have to reimburse every spectator the cost of their ticket who missed out on the session due to their actions, as well as replacing the baize on the table and any television money lost through no play being able to happen
I don’t think they should be jailed, but they should have to reimburse every spectator the cost of their ticket who missed out on the session due to their actions, as well as replacing the baize on the table and any television money lost through no play being able to happen
Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.
At last, a sane answer. Of course they will face criminal consequences, albeit minor. There will be a stain on a surface of a snooker table. In the grand scheme of things, not the most shocking offence a criminal court will ever have seen lol. Do keep things in perspective folks.
Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.
Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
Yes, if their protest is too disruptive. There’s a spectrum from peaceful protest, through disruptive protest, through to terrorist protest. At some point protest is so disruptive or damaging that the general public reasonably expect to be protected against it.
Yes. They are criminals. They deliberately and knowingly set up to engage in criminal activity and cause criminal damage. They are also fully aware of the laws they are breaking – though ignorance of the law is no defence. Pre-medidated crime is always more serious than opportunistic or provoked crime.
It’s really very simple. We must enforce the laws we have. If we do not wish to punish such people, we should change the laws (not a position I agree with in these cases).
Judges who selectively fail to enforce the law due to their personal sympathies also need to be punished. This is professional misconduct.
In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.
In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.
Yes. They are criminals. They deliberately and knowingly set up to engage in criminal activity and cause criminal damage. They are also fully aware of the laws they are breaking – though ignorance of the law is no defence. Pre-medidated crime is always more serious than opportunistic or provoked crime.
It’s really very simple. We must enforce the laws we have. If we do not wish to punish such people, we should change the laws (not a position I agree with in these cases).
Judges who selectively fail to enforce the law due to their personal sympathies also need to be punished. This is professional misconduct.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
Yes.
That’s the headline answered. The rest of the article, predictably, is only tangentially related to the headline and very interesting it all is, too. The most welcome argument was this: “If you know that a barrister could have refused to act for an unpopular client, you are more likely to believe that he or she approves of their actions.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way before of course, not being a lawyer myself, but it makes perfect sense. If advocates are free to reject defending people with whom they may personally disagree, then it follows that any advocate defending a person might on some level approve of that person’s actions and the crime of which they might eventually be found guilty. How then are people accused of terrible crimes to expect a fair defence? The institution of the right to a fair defence is fatally undermined by such a development.
Of course, the sorts of activists in question don’t care about that sort of thing, just as they do not care for the liberty and living standards of people in general. Their claims to care about future generations instead are the nothing more than a repeat of the same horseshit trotted out by power junkies in every generation: a distant and vague danger is hyped up so as to scare people into handing over rights and freedoms to a bunch of corrupt zealots who don’t care who they stamp upon in getting to the top.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
Yes.
That’s the headline answered. The rest of the article, predictably, is only tangentially related to the headline and very interesting it all is, too. The most welcome argument was this: “If you know that a barrister could have refused to act for an unpopular client, you are more likely to believe that he or she approves of their actions.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way before of course, not being a lawyer myself, but it makes perfect sense. If advocates are free to reject defending people with whom they may personally disagree, then it follows that any advocate defending a person might on some level approve of that person’s actions and the crime of which they might eventually be found guilty. How then are people accused of terrible crimes to expect a fair defence? The institution of the right to a fair defence is fatally undermined by such a development.
Of course, the sorts of activists in question don’t care about that sort of thing, just as they do not care for the liberty and living standards of people in general. Their claims to care about future generations instead are the nothing more than a repeat of the same horseshit trotted out by power junkies in every generation: a distant and vague danger is hyped up so as to scare people into handing over rights and freedoms to a bunch of corrupt zealots who don’t care who they stamp upon in getting to the top.
They deserve to be inconvenienced enough that they think twice about doing it again and serve as a deterrent against similar activities.
Community service may suffice. Perhaps cleaning up dead birds killed by windfarms or helping out at a rare minerals mine in Africa.
They need to get ‘woke’ to the fact that their net zero absolutism is wrongheaded.
Or a ticket to China to enable them to protest what, in their terms, has to be the most serious threat, the proliferation of coal fired fire stations.
But you know what, they wouldn’t go
Of course not.
The first thing the ‘Chinks’ would do is despatch them to a Re-Education Camp in the Gobi Desert, from which very few would survive.
Would that be any loss?
Exactly, most of “climate emergency” woke idiots are Neo-Marxists who hate the West.
Usually grads in soft subjects in 3rd rate pseudo universities….
You can meet them as staff in many craft beer bars in London.
Not as customers. They are too stupid to have a job to afford it…
Of course not.
The first thing the ‘Chinks’ would do is despatch them to a Re-Education Camp in the Gobi Desert, from which very few would survive.
Would that be any loss?
Exactly, most of “climate emergency” woke idiots are Neo-Marxists who hate the West.
Usually grads in soft subjects in 3rd rate pseudo universities….
You can meet them as staff in many craft beer bars in London.
Not as customers. They are too stupid to have a job to afford it…
The huge quantities of balsa for rotor blades destroying forests and communities in Equador, the BPA resin accumulations (preventing foetal brain development as well as other detrimental effects) in crop fields and waterways (declared as safe by the American Clean Power Association(!!) though not by other environmental agencies) and run offs into the sea, the pressure waves from the rotors killing bats as they fly past, shredding birds on migration routes, the interference with sediment/nutrition mixing in marine systems, the lack of recyclables…..and they don’t work if the wind don’t blow. Problem with net zero? A minor spit in a bucket compared to EV’s.
AND Greenpeace are now campaigning for windfarms in the Northern right whale breeding grounds in the Arctic which the old protesters risked their lives to protect in the seventies!
It beggars belief that people who purportedly have enough capacity to run a country (Boris, Sunak) could be duped into thinking net zero is a solution and thereby strengthening the beliefs of ER. Net zero may well have disastrous effects on climate. CO2 in the atmosphere is back in favour with the real scientists with a vengeance! A public education drive could go a long way to turning the protest tide.
Meantime, they’ll do less damage to the environment if they’re locked up.
Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?
No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…
Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?
No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…
Or a ticket to China to enable them to protest what, in their terms, has to be the most serious threat, the proliferation of coal fired fire stations.
But you know what, they wouldn’t go
The huge quantities of balsa for rotor blades destroying forests and communities in Equador, the BPA resin accumulations (preventing foetal brain development as well as other detrimental effects) in crop fields and waterways (declared as safe by the American Clean Power Association(!!) though not by other environmental agencies) and run offs into the sea, the pressure waves from the rotors killing bats as they fly past, shredding birds on migration routes, the interference with sediment/nutrition mixing in marine systems, the lack of recyclables…..and they don’t work if the wind don’t blow. Problem with net zero? A minor spit in a bucket compared to EV’s.
AND Greenpeace are now campaigning for windfarms in the Northern right whale breeding grounds in the Arctic which the old protesters risked their lives to protect in the seventies!
It beggars belief that people who purportedly have enough capacity to run a country (Boris, Sunak) could be duped into thinking net zero is a solution and thereby strengthening the beliefs of ER. Net zero may well have disastrous effects on climate. CO2 in the atmosphere is back in favour with the real scientists with a vengeance! A public education drive could go a long way to turning the protest tide.
Meantime, they’ll do less damage to the environment if they’re locked up.
They deserve to be inconvenienced enough that they think twice about doing it again and serve as a deterrent against similar activities.
Community service may suffice. Perhaps cleaning up dead birds killed by windfarms or helping out at a rare minerals mine in Africa.
They need to get ‘woke’ to the fact that their net zero absolutism is wrongheaded.
The ideas behind “protest” are to peacefully bear witness, and in the US under the First Amendment to peaceably petition the government. Nowhere was there a right to disrupt or threaten people in their pursuit of their normal activities or business. All the confusion comes because we now allow such tactics of disruption, intimidation, and threats and have trouble knowing where to draw the line.
The line should be drawn at or very near zero. You can bear witness or present a petition of grievances, and if that attracts media and public attention, fine. If you plan a huge crowd, there should be an avenue to get a permit that involves special accommodations such as temporarily preempting the public right of way. Beyond that level of approved disruption, you cannot disrupt, intimidate, or physically abuse or threaten people.
That would be right and fair and pretty easy to adjudicate.
The ideas behind “protest” are to peacefully bear witness, and in the US under the First Amendment to peaceably petition the government. Nowhere was there a right to disrupt or threaten people in their pursuit of their normal activities or business. All the confusion comes because we now allow such tactics of disruption, intimidation, and threats and have trouble knowing where to draw the line.
The line should be drawn at or very near zero. You can bear witness or present a petition of grievances, and if that attracts media and public attention, fine. If you plan a huge crowd, there should be an avenue to get a permit that involves special accommodations such as temporarily preempting the public right of way. Beyond that level of approved disruption, you cannot disrupt, intimidate, or physically abuse or threaten people.
That would be right and fair and pretty easy to adjudicate.
I have long thought that protesters can always defy laws they disagree with, provided they are prepared to accept the legal consequences. I would consider doing so myself. However, defying a law, even a bad one, and expecting to be let away with it is not part of the deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living on the right planet.
I have long thought that protesters can always defy laws they disagree with, provided they are prepared to accept the legal consequences. I would consider doing so myself. However, defying a law, even a bad one, and expecting to be let away with it is not part of the deal. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living on the right planet.
The one guy has been arrested six times. I get protests. I support the right to protest, but there needs to be an example at some point.
I know someone who is the same in my area of living. He is a nice chap, but once he is in protest mode he comes across as a cult member. And until he received home arrest, which I agree was onerous, he was getting arrested every few months. I think after a few arrests it seems like an addiction too for many. Just Stop Oil and my acquaintance would be much better off getting their hands dirty and actually helping people and local projects in regards to the environment.
I know someone who is the same in my area of living. He is a nice chap, but once he is in protest mode he comes across as a cult member. And until he received home arrest, which I agree was onerous, he was getting arrested every few months. I think after a few arrests it seems like an addiction too for many. Just Stop Oil and my acquaintance would be much better off getting their hands dirty and actually helping people and local projects in regards to the environment.
The one guy has been arrested six times. I get protests. I support the right to protest, but there needs to be an example at some point.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compel these idiots to compensate every single person whose property they’ve damaged or whose life they’ve disrupted – even if that takes many years.
Let’s face it: they’ll be out in a few months to a hero’s welcome.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compel these idiots to compensate every single person whose property they’ve damaged or whose life they’ve disrupted – even if that takes many years.
Let’s face it: they’ll be out in a few months to a hero’s welcome.
Britain is now imprisoning people for the most disturbingly insignificant crimes, not least today for a farmer dredging a river. Prison more often that not destroys peoples entire future and lives, giving them no option other than becoming career criminals, using skills that they have actually acquired in prison.
The climate change eco sandaloids are a slightly different case, in as far as they and their acolytes see imprisonment as a superb ” martyrdom” asset, so imprisonment is actually a double negative to and for all concerned.
Our prisons are a disfunctional disgrace, run by criminals, using a regime of drugs and violence, with successive governments doing absolutely nothing about this chilling situation: yet another example of the descent of a once great country into a third world mess.
Our entire Criminal Justice system is an utter disgrace!
Certain QC/KC’s raking in salaries of over half a million for ‘Legal Aid’ work, and then being promoted to the zenith of the pile!
If this continues anarchy will be the result. And that will be anarchy “sine missione”.
Our entire Criminal Justice system is an utter disgrace!
Certain QC/KC’s raking in salaries of over half a million for ‘Legal Aid’ work, and then being promoted to the zenith of the pile!
If this continues anarchy will be the result. And that will be anarchy “sine missione”.
Britain is now imprisoning people for the most disturbingly insignificant crimes, not least today for a farmer dredging a river. Prison more often that not destroys peoples entire future and lives, giving them no option other than becoming career criminals, using skills that they have actually acquired in prison.
The climate change eco sandaloids are a slightly different case, in as far as they and their acolytes see imprisonment as a superb ” martyrdom” asset, so imprisonment is actually a double negative to and for all concerned.
Our prisons are a disfunctional disgrace, run by criminals, using a regime of drugs and violence, with successive governments doing absolutely nothing about this chilling situation: yet another example of the descent of a once great country into a third world mess.
Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.
Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
YES!!
“Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?”
YES!!
Well, laws around protests are very complex. What is not too complex to understand, however, is the fact that if the protesters’ desired outcome is to get people on their side (and influence the government), it is having the opposite effect.
Well, laws around protests are very complex. What is not too complex to understand, however, is the fact that if the protesters’ desired outcome is to get people on their side (and influence the government), it is having the opposite effect.
Like most readers i find these eco-loons beneath contempt, despite their hypcracy and luxury beliefs being what you’d expect from posh kids who’ve never had to work. They seemingly ignore our rampant disregard for the bioshpere whilst wittering about warming and cow farts. However they seem to be unlucky here. The UK lacks a real legal system and a legitimate judiciary. These ecos clearly got the judge who worked for Brown and Root or has a lot of Exxon shares. In the same week i read about someone getting i think it was 4 years for a killing and a cleric only 3 years (out in 12m?) for child sex offences. The eco-loons are IMO misguided, their dead-eyed loyalty to the cause is scary. I’ll leave the readers to consider how they’d rate the “legal” system and “judiciary” by comparison?
Like most readers i find these eco-loons beneath contempt, despite their hypcracy and luxury beliefs being what you’d expect from posh kids who’ve never had to work. They seemingly ignore our rampant disregard for the bioshpere whilst wittering about warming and cow farts. However they seem to be unlucky here. The UK lacks a real legal system and a legitimate judiciary. These ecos clearly got the judge who worked for Brown and Root or has a lot of Exxon shares. In the same week i read about someone getting i think it was 4 years for a killing and a cleric only 3 years (out in 12m?) for child sex offences. The eco-loons are IMO misguided, their dead-eyed loyalty to the cause is scary. I’ll leave the readers to consider how they’d rate the “legal” system and “judiciary” by comparison?
Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.
Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.
So we allow ‘peaceful protest’ and then put in rules that make the protests totally ineffective. We allow freedom of speech and then jail protesters for ‘silent prayer’.
So we allow ‘peaceful protest’ and then put in rules that make the protests totally ineffective. We allow freedom of speech and then jail protesters for ‘silent prayer’.
To better understand the fanatics, read an old book, Eric Hoffer’s
“The True Believer.” His examples are drawn from Nazis and Communists, but his conclusions are applicable to human kind.
Thank you Adam. A beautifully lucid statement of the arguments.