Fuel Protests

[Bobby Dazzler]

That must be why the ‘ask questions later’ Gendarmerie was annoyed and reshaped the roller roof

It’s not commonly known, is counter intuitive, on what is without doubt the biggest “roundabout” most people will ever drive around, and anyone not doing it regularly will almost certainly be thinking more about the fact they are not insured than they are the peculiarities of right of way.

Not surprised that the Rolls-Royce driver was being cautious, and not surprised that Police were on it quickly, it‘s knife-edge which only works when “everything” keeps moving!

 

[grober]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[grober]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Its possible that there exist many formerly civilised / inhabited planets in the galaxy that possessed the propensity for self destruction once a dominant organic species reaches a certain level of sophisticated technology that inadvertantly destroys the environment they just chanced to evolve in. Perhaps its an inherent evolutionary cycle for habitable planets in the goldilocks zone of many planetary systems to ultimately self destruct. The characteristics of the human species that has brought us thus far perhaps also contains the seeds of our own destruction? Not so much WHEN but HOW. For every Nelson Mandela there's a Vladimir Putin.

 

[190]

Best news I've read in a long time.

The arrogance of these people is astounding, the chief prat was lucky not to get longer than 5 years. His behaviour in court demonstrated beyond doubt that a jail sentence is the only deterrent.

Just Stop Oil protesters jailed after M25 blocked

 

[AMGeed]

^ Pity it wasn't a lot longer

 

[flying haggis]

Best news I've read in a long time.

The arrogance of these people is astounding, the chief prat was lucky not to get longer than 5 years. His behaviour in court demonstrated beyond doubt that a jail sentence is the only deterrent.

Just Stop Oil protesters jailed after M25 blocked

So if the judge could have given them each ten years, why didnt he?? And why did all the traffic have to be stopped just because someone was on the cables? the traffic doesnt get stopped if maintenance workers are above

 

[Jukie]

^ Pity it wasn't a lot longer

Or maybe they could have been ignored and left up there?

 

[Dippo]

They'll probably be released in 6 months because the prisons are full.

 

[MrGreedy]

I'm on the gantry, er, I mean fence, about prison sentences for protest of this type of 'harm' caused, particularly at the lower end which I assume this was, which the article references as:

“serious harm” to a section of the public. This can include property damage, injury, serious distress, annoyance or inconvenience

Because prison sentences for annoyance or inconvenience seem to be getting to the authoritarian end of the spectrum (as these laws are intended to be, but won't be as severe as Trudeau's 'Thought Crime' online safety bill should Starmer roll that peach out
Justin Trudeau’s arrogant, woke tyranny is a chilling vision of life under Starmer ).

However, let's all go along with prison sentences for inconvenience and say there's no dispute with that punishment approach.
What I struggle to comprehend is the length of sentencing here. If you look at how long crims get for violent, horrible acts against an individual, they might be serving a similar time to someone who has caused inconvenience in this case. This doesn't feel right for me. Either those personal and brutal crimes need ratcheting up in duration, or the punishment duration for inconvenience needs to be decreased.

Ask the victims of those crimes whether they sleep better at night if people are imprisoned longer for inconvenience crimes, or rape or assault.

 

[190]

I'm on the gantry, er, I mean fence, about prison sentences for protest of this type of 'harm' caused, particularly at the lower end which I assume this was, which the article references as:

“serious harm” to a section of the public. This can include property damage, injury, serious distress, annoyance or inconvenience

Because prison sentences for annoyance or inconvenience seem to be getting to the authoritarian end of the spectrum (as these laws are intended to be, but won't be as severe as Trudeau's 'Thought Crime' online safety bill should Starmer roll that peach out
Justin Trudeau’s arrogant, woke tyranny is a chilling vision of life under Starmer ).

However, let's all go along with prison sentences for inconvenience and say there's no dispute with that punishment approach.
What I struggle to comprehend is the length of sentencing here. If you look at how long crims get for violent, horrible acts against an individual, they might be serving a similar time to someone who has caused inconvenience in this case. This doesn't feel right for me. Either those personal and brutal crimes need ratcheting up in duration, or the punishment duration for inconvenience needs to be decreased.

Ask the victims of those crimes whether they sleep better at night if people are imprisoned longer for inconvenience crimes, or rape or assault.

While I have some sympathy for your point of view in terms of jail for protests in general, I think this was a special case. These protestors have displayed contempt for public welfare, contempt for the law, contempt for the court and the Judge. By their behaviour in court they invited what might otherwise seem to be a disproportionately long sentence compared to rape etc.. Such is their arrogance that nothing short of a jail sentence was going to make the slightest impression on them. The leader Hallam seems to have deserved his 5 years while the others may not have deserved 4 years depending how strongly they were influenced.

 

[markjay]

I'm on the gantry, er, I mean fence, about prison sentences for protest of this type of 'harm' caused, particularly at the lower end which I assume this was, which the article references as:

“serious harm” to a section of the public. This can include property damage, injury, serious distress, annoyance or inconvenience

Because prison sentences for annoyance or inconvenience seem to be getting to the authoritarian end of the spectrum (as these laws are intended to be, but won't be as severe as Trudeau's 'Thought Crime' online safety bill should Starmer roll that peach out
Justin Trudeau’s arrogant, woke tyranny is a chilling vision of life under Starmer ).

However, let's all go along with prison sentences for inconvenience and say there's no dispute with that punishment approach.
What I struggle to comprehend is the length of sentencing here. If you look at how long crims get for violent, horrible acts against an individual, they might be serving a similar time to someone who has caused inconvenience in this case. This doesn't feel right for me. Either those personal and brutal crimes need ratcheting up in duration, or the punishment duration for inconvenience needs to be decreased.

Ask the victims of those crimes whether they sleep better at night if people are imprisoned longer for inconvenience crimes, or rape or assault.

I think that part of the issue is that the harm caused isn't easily quantifiable - did people not get to hospital in time for treatment or surgery? Were emergency services delayed while trying to get to the scene of an emergency? Did people miss flights that were supposed to take them to important personal occasions or crucial business meeting? Was there a potential for cars to crash and people to be injured (or worse), as result of the disruptions to traffic on the M25? Etc.

 

[Darrell]

I'm on the gantry, er, I mean fence, about prison sentences for protest of this type of 'harm' caused, particularly at the lower end which I assume this was, which the article references as:

“serious harm” to a section of the public. This can include property damage, injury, serious distress, annoyance or inconvenience

Because prison sentences for annoyance or inconvenience seem to be getting to the authoritarian end of the spectrum (as these laws are intended to be, but won't be as severe as Trudeau's 'Thought Crime' online safety bill should Starmer roll that peach out
Justin Trudeau’s arrogant, woke tyranny is a chilling vision of life under Starmer ).

However, let's all go along with prison sentences for inconvenience and say there's no dispute with that punishment approach.
What I struggle to comprehend is the length of sentencing here. If you look at how long crims get for violent, horrible acts against an individual, they might be serving a similar time to someone who has caused inconvenience in this case. This doesn't feel right for me. Either those personal and brutal crimes need ratcheting up in duration, or the punishment duration for inconvenience needs to be decreased.

Ask the victims of those crimes whether they sleep better at night if people are imprisoned longer for inconvenience crimes, or rape or assault.

We’ll see how you think when your dad is about to kick the bucket and you can’t get to the hospital to see him because a couple of these oiks have decided to barricade a gantry.

 

[MrGreedy]

We’ll see how you think when your dad is about to kick the bucket and you can’t get to the hospital to see him because a couple of these oiks have decided to barricade a gantry.

Good point. Maybe the sentences should be upto 20 years? If someone is dying in ambulance for example, is this akin to premeditated murder of some kind? It's premeditated, and it's been in the news enough that someone dying in an ambulance could be a foreseen consequence. I'm just curious about the balance of sentencing vs other crimes.

 

[ALFAitalia]

However, let's all go along with prison sentences for inconvenience and say there's no dispute with that punishment approach.
What I struggle to comprehend is the length of sentencing here. If you look at how long crims get for violent, horrible acts against an individual, they might be serving a similar time to someone who has caused inconvenience in this case. This doesn't feel right for me. Either those personal and brutal crimes need ratcheting up in duration, or the punishment duration for inconvenience needs to be decreased

True... but most of those crimes only have one victim...or a few at the most. These brainless idiots effected thousands or tens of thousands. Look at it that way and they should never get out!

 

[MSG2004]

Indeed.
Credit to the judge.
I guess if they are released in a few weeks/months as they will be, I'm pretty certain they won't block roads again. If they
did, I guess the jail term will be longer.

 

[st13phil]

This will be the first big test for Starmer.

My view is that the Judge was accurate in his summing up and that he fully understood the need for long custodial sentences in order to protect the public from the fanatical excesses of Hallam in particular but also his similarly fanatical followers. That Hallam was arrested three times during the proceedings for disobeying the Judge amply demonstrates his (and his fellow traveller's) utter disrespect for the law and the rights of the general public to go about their lives without disruption.

Unsurprisingly, there are already howls of protest from the eco-loon community which includes such delightful people as the eco-entrepreneur Dale Vince (ex-member of Just Stop Oil and major Labour donor whose modus operandi is to spray not orange paint but writs at anyone who disagrees with his position), owl-botherer Chris Packham and an assorted bunch of left-wing MP's such as Clive Lewis. Expect their howls to get louder and for them to demand intervention by the Attorney General (at the very least) to overturn the sentences.

Oh, and a message for the UN Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michael Forst, who has already pronounced the sentences to be "a dark day for peaceful protest in the UK". The fanatics who have been jailed were not engaged in peaceful protest. They were engaged in a coordinated effort to cause massive disruption to the population of the UK and economic harm on a scale high enough to force the government to acquiesce to their demands. That is terrorism, not peaceful protest, so keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself thank you.

 

[GrahamT]

x.com

 

[st13phil]

If anyone is thinking that the sentences handed down were on the harsh side, it's worth spending a few minutes to read the judges sentencing remarks, available here.

Of particular note is that all were repeat offenders, and all were in breach of previous Court orders. Paragraphs 41 through 45 are particularly pertinent.

 

[ChrisPDuck]

If anyone is thinking that the sentences handed down were on the harsh side, it's worth spending a few minutes to read the judges sentencing remarks, available here.

Of particular note is that all were repeat offenders, and all were in breach of previous Court orders. Paragraphs 41 through 45 are particularly pertinent.

Interesting read - it gives an insight into the care and clear thinking that goes into such sentencing.

My favourite bit: "I stress again that your conduct during the trial does not add a single day to your sentence, but it deprives you of any mitigation based on the suggestion that you are a changed man.". Oops.

 

[E55BOF]

I doubt that particular idiot will change his ways. I wonder how long a sentence he will get next time.