Subscribe
Notify of
guest

47 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Wilkes
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago

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?

Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Wilkes

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.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Covid?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Have you? May I ask.

As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank 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.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Covid?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

In the UK who has faced a moment of state oppression?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Have you? May I ask.

As at 15.57BST, stunned silence from the “oppressed “ McCusker.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank 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.

mfx v
mfx v
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups

Philip Stott
Philip Stott
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

Are you the author of this article?

Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

He is not!

Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Stott

He is not!

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

The “regime”, my foot. You never faced a moment of state oppression in your cossetted life mate.

mfx v
mfx v
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

I shared your view until this verdict, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

And the authorities are always absent in the event of left wing violence against right wing groups

Philip Stott
Philip Stott
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam K

Are you the author of this article?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Wilkes

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.  

Rob Mcneill-wilson
Rob Mcneill-wilson
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.

Geoff Wilkes
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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.

Rob Mcneill-wilson
Rob Mcneill-wilson
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Regarding your (ii) – the actions could be being taken to get the law changed so then the cause wouldn’t be illegal.

Geoff Wilkes
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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.

Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Wilkes

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.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Wilkes

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.  

Geoff Wilkes
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago

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?

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

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.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

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.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

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.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

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.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

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.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

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.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

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.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

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.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

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.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Yes, and blocking roads in major cities is an example of where the public ‘reasonably expect to be protected’ against.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

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.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

In fact thanks to the antics of Hoffman and others, it has been quite obvious for years that we need a professional judiciary.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

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.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“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.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“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.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
mfx v
mfx v
1 year ago

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by mfx v
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  mfx v

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

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

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?

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

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…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

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?

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

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…

Dugan E
Dugan E
1 year ago
Reply to  mfx v

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dugan E
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Dugan E

Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?

Carmel Shortall
Carmel Shortall
1 year ago
Reply to  Dugan E

No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Dugan E

Public education drive?
Great idea but who would do it?
Surely not teachers and MSM who are pushing this agenda?

Carmel Shortall
Carmel Shortall
1 year ago
Reply to  Dugan E

No ‘duping’ is involved. The likes of Sunak and Johnson work for the WEF, not for us. They are only following orders…

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  mfx v

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

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Dugan E
Dugan E
1 year ago
Reply to  mfx v

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dugan E
mfx v
mfx v
1 year ago

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by mfx v
Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

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.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
1 year ago

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.

Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
1 year ago

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
1 year ago

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Barrett
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

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.

Kevan Hudson
Kevan Hudson
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Kevan Hudson
Kevan Hudson
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

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.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

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.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

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.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

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”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

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”.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

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.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Maybe there should be escalating sentences. Maybe light treatment for first conviction and stiffer penalties for each subsequent conviction.

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago

Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
YES!!

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago

Do Just Stop Oil deserve to be in prison?
YES!!

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Pellatt
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

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’.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

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’.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Yet again draconian censorship has ruined this discussion.
You MUST do better UnHerd.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago

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.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago

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.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago

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?

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago

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?

Graham Thorpe
Graham Thorpe
1 year ago

Thank you Adam. A beautifully lucid statement of the arguments.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 year ago

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.