On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any
of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick
blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should
a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
It's surely a better and more moral line to take than one which supports
and praises criminal defendants?
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any
of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any
of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather than >>> the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed >>> The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick
blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should
a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was from 4 to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most cases were not altered. The reason was little to do with the actual crime.
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It's surely a better and more moral line to take than one which supports
and praises criminal defendants?
Hypocritical criticism of a technical decision is not particularly moral. Sympathising with a criminal defendant may or may not be moral depending quite
why the sympathy is felt.
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any
of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to eco-
zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists, Tories
warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick blasted
the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in disruptive
motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
In relation to the "Sunflowers" case, the relevant points are:
quote
On 14 October 2022 two protesters threw soup onto Vincent van Gogh’s painting known as “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery. They were each convicted on 25 July 2024 of criminal damage contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appeal against the immediate custodial
sentences imposed on them on 27 September 2024 in the Crown Court at Southwark by HHJ Hehir, namely:
i) Phoebe Plummer: 24 months’ imprisonment.
ii) Anna Holland: 20 months’ imprisonment.
In the Sunflowers case, the judge gave a careful ruling during the
course of trial in which he held that neither the conviction nor the sentencing of the appellants engaged any issue of proportionality. In
his judgment, Articles 10 and 11 did not apply at all because i) the
actions of Ms Plummer and Mx Holland were violent and not peaceful;
and ii) they caused significant damage.
...we consider that Ms Plummer and Mx Holland’s actions engaged Articles
10 and 11. While shocking, their actions were not violent. For these
reasons, Articles 10 and 11 were engaged on the facts of the Sunflowers
case (albeit significantly weakened).
The judge was fully entitled to place this offence in the high
culpability category. The appellants devised a plan to carry out a particularly high profile stunt, they conducted reconnaissance, they
equipped themselves with what was needed, they spoke to a journalist and
they arranged for their activity to be filmed to maximise the attendant publicity. This was much more than just “Some planning”.
First, it was submitted that there was no evidence that the painting
was at risk of damage. This was a factual issue which the trial judge
was well placed to assess and we see no reason to disagree with his assessment that the reaction of the gallery staff indicated that they considered that there was a risk of damage to the painting.
Secondly, it was submitted that the judge misapplied s. 63 of the
Sentencing Act 2020.
We do not consider that Ms Plummer’s sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and- Others-Judgment.pdf
On 09/03/2025 11:41 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any >>>> of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather
than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences
slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should >>> a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it
finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was
from 4
to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most cases were not altered.
The
reason was little to do with the actual crime.
I didn't claim that anyone was getting off "scot free". I pointed out
that many people would regard the reduction in the sentences as wrong.
The implication is that the reduction would send a possibly (I don't go
as far as "probably") a counter-productive message, leading to an
emboldening of those criminals and others tempted to commit copycat
crimes against the population.
That is a valid opinion. Well, unless it is now a given that no-one is allowed to have and expound an opinion which would not gain approbation
below the line on the Guardian Opinion page, that is.
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It certainly isn't synthetic. It will be sincerely and honestly held.
Please be humble enough to accept and appreciate that not everyone
thinks as you do.
And there is no sense in which it is "hypocritical".
Those crimes were serious. Many people - innocent people - were harmed
by them. They have to be adequately punished - and deterred.
It's surely a better and more moral line to take than one which supports >>> and praises criminal defendants?
Hypocritical criticism of a technical decision is not particularly moral.
Sympathising with a criminal defendant may or may not be moral
depending quite
why the sympathy is felt.
As is so often said these days (particularly by governments): "It sends
the wrong message".
The world wasn't going to end just because some callous criminal had to
do (an extra) 365 x 0.4 days in prison.
"Pour encourager les autres" is apposite here.
On 09/03/2025 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:41 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether
any of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press
has focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced
rather than the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was
furious.
Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences
slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why
should a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when itI didn't claim that anyone was getting off "scot free". I pointed out
finds that the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main
decrease was from 4 to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most
cases were not altered. The reason was little to do with the actual crime. >>
that many people would regard the reduction in the sentences as wrong.
The implication is that the reduction would send a possibly (I don't
go as far as "probably") a counter-productive message, leading to an
emboldening of those criminals and others tempted to commit copycat
crimes against the population.
That is a valid opinion. Well, unless it is now a given that no-one is
allowed to have and expound an opinion which would not gain
approbation below the line on the Guardian Opinion page, that is.
What has the Guardian got to do with it? Surely none of us should be obtaining our opinions from our favourite newspapers?
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It certainly isn't synthetic. It will be sincerely and honestly held.
Please be humble enough to accept and appreciate that not everyone
thinks as you do.
And maybe you should be humble enough to accept and appreciate that the
task of sentencing an offender is a skill that involves training and reference to past cases and to sentencing guidelines. The opinion of Joe Public is therefore quite worthless. It would be like asking Joe Public
to vote on what the separation distance between incoming aircraft at
Heathrow ought to be, or some other specialised topic where a mistake
could have important ramifications.
Robert Jenrick is obviously one of those crowd-pleasing politicians who
tries to garner votes by saying that judges are stupid.
Of course, he
isn't the only one. Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to have infected some of our own politicians.
And there is no sense in which it is "hypocritical".
Those crimes were serious. Many people - innocent people - were harmed
by them. They have to be adequately punished - and deterred.
Is it your impression after reading the court judgment with due care and attention that the judges lost sight of those principles?
It's surely a better and more moral line to take than one which
supports and praises criminal defendants?
How about a line that supports the decisions made by judges and accepts
that sometimes a slightly reduced sentence is appropriate and is still
an adequate deterrent?
Hypocritical criticism of a technical decision is not particularly
moral.
Sympathising with a criminal defendant may or may not be moral
depending quite why the sympathy is felt.
As is so often said these days (particularly by governments): "It
sends the wrong message".
No, the wrong message is "Judges get it wrong again. If only our
government had wider powers to increase sentences without asking judges
for permission, we'd have a better society and citizens would behave themselves for fear of being thrown into gaol".
The world wasn't going to end just because some callous criminal had
to do (an extra) 365 x 0.4 days in prison.
"Pour encourager les autres" is apposite here.
Jenrick certainly encourages les autres to disrespect our judges and our justice system. Maybe he is a disciple of Donald Trump.
On 09/03/2025 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:41 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any >>>>> of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has >>>>> focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather
than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences
slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should >>>> a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it
finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was
from 4
to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most cases were not altered.
The
reason was little to do with the actual crime.
I didn't claim that anyone was getting off "scot free". I pointed out
that many people would regard the reduction in the sentences as wrong.
The implication is that the reduction would send a possibly (I don't go
as far as "probably") a counter-productive message, leading to an
emboldening of those criminals and others tempted to commit copycat
crimes against the population.
That is a valid opinion. Well, unless it is now a given that no-one is
allowed to have and expound an opinion which would not gain approbation
below the line on the Guardian Opinion page, that is.
What has the Guardian got to do with it? Surely none of us should be obtaining our opinions from our favourite newspapers?
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It certainly isn't synthetic. It will be sincerely and honestly held.
Please be humble enough to accept and appreciate that not everyone
thinks as you do.
And maybe you should be humble enough to accept and appreciate that the
task of sentencing an offender is a skill that involves training and reference to past cases and to sentencing guidelines. The opinion of Joe Public is therefore quite worthless. It would be like asking Joe Public
to vote on what the separation distance between incoming aircraft at
Heathrow ought to be, or some other specialised topic where a mistake
could have important ramifications.
Robert Jenrick is obviously one of those crowd-pleasing politicians who
tries to garner votes by saying that judges are stupid. Of course, he
isn't the only one. Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to have infected some of our own politicians.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:41 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any >>>>>> of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has >>>>>> focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather >>>>>> than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences
slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists, >>>>>> Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should >>>>> a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it
finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was >>>> from 4
to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most cases were not altered. >>>> The
reason was little to do with the actual crime.
I didn't claim that anyone was getting off "scot free". I pointed out
that many people would regard the reduction in the sentences as wrong.
The implication is that the reduction would send a possibly (I don't go
as far as "probably") a counter-productive message, leading to an
emboldening of those criminals and others tempted to commit copycat
crimes against the population.
That is a valid opinion. Well, unless it is now a given that no-one is
allowed to have and expound an opinion which would not gain approbation
below the line on the Guardian Opinion page, that is.
What has the Guardian got to do with it? Surely none of us should be
obtaining our opinions from our favourite newspapers?
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It certainly isn't synthetic. It will be sincerely and honestly held.
Please be humble enough to accept and appreciate that not everyone
thinks as you do.
And maybe you should be humble enough to accept and appreciate that the
task of sentencing an offender is a skill that involves training and
reference to past cases and to sentencing guidelines. The opinion of Joe
Public is therefore quite worthless. It would be like asking Joe Public
to vote on what the separation distance between incoming aircraft at
Heathrow ought to be, or some other specialised topic where a mistake
could have important ramifications.
Robert Jenrick is obviously one of those crowd-pleasing politicians who
tries to garner votes by saying that judges are stupid. Of course, he
isn't the only one. Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently
complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the
Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to have
infected some of our own politicians.
She said that as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority she did not see why she should get special treatment, that we should all be equal.
Can you explain why she is wrong?
On 9 Mar 2025 11:41:39 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any >>>> of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has
focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather than >>>> the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed >>>> The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should >>> a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was from 4
to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free.
It strikes me that if the reduced sentences had been originally set,
the Daily mail and its followers would have been delighted with them!
On 09/03/2025 09:44, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether
any of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press
has focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced
rather than the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious.
Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to eco-
zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists, Tories
warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick
blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in
disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
In relation to the "Sunflowers" case, the relevant points are:
quote
On 14 October 2022 two protesters threw soup onto Vincent van Gogh’s
painting known as “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery. They were each >> convicted on 25 July 2024 of criminal damage contrary to s. 1(1) of
the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appeal against the immediate
custodial sentences imposed on them on 27 September 2024 in the Crown
Court at Southwark by HHJ Hehir, namely:
i) Phoebe Plummer: 24 months’ imprisonment.
ii) Anna Holland: 20 months’ imprisonment.
In the Sunflowers case, the judge gave a careful ruling during the
course of trial in which he held that neither the conviction nor the
sentencing of the appellants engaged any issue of proportionality. In
his judgment, Articles 10 and 11 did not apply at all because i) the
actions of Ms Plummer and Mx Holland were violent and not peaceful;
and ii) they caused significant damage.
...we consider that Ms Plummer and Mx Holland’s actions engaged
Articles 10 and 11. While shocking, their actions were not violent.
For these reasons, Articles 10 and 11 were engaged on the facts of the
Sunflowers case (albeit significantly weakened).
The judge was fully entitled to place this offence in the high
culpability category. The appellants devised a plan to carry out a
particularly high profile stunt, they conducted reconnaissance, they
equipped themselves with what was needed, they spoke to a journalist
and they arranged for their activity to be filmed to maximise the
attendant
publicity. This was much more than just “Some planning”.
That's interesting. How does 'planning' affect what criminal damage
(the offence of which they were convicted) was actually caused? It may indeed have been planning in order to minimise any actual damage, eg by checking that it was in fact adequately protected from what they
intended to do (which it was).
The only actual 'damage' that was caused was not to the painting, which wasn't even touched, but only if anything to the frame, which probably
needed a good clean anyway. And that hardly warranted a 2 year jail sentence.
Of course the sentiments of the establishment, who for some reason like
Van Gogh's rapid and garish daubs, were also being attacked, which
probably accounts for the harsh sentences. But I don't think their hurt feelings actually come under the definition of the word 'property' as
used in the Criminal Damage Act, so they shouldn't have had any bearing
on the matter.
First, it was submitted that there was no evidence that the painting
was at risk of damage. This was a factual issue which the trial judge
was well placed to assess and we see no reason to disagree with his
assessment that the reaction of the gallery staff indicated that they
considered that there was a risk of damage to the painting.
That's interesting too. Do other peoples' reactions affect the actual damage for which one is convicted and sentenced?
Besides, the absence of any damage whatsoever to the painting means they evaluated the risk, even if risk is at all relevant, totally excessively.
Secondly, it was submitted that the judge misapplied s. 63 of the
Sentencing Act 2020.
We do not consider that Ms Plummer’s sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Well, I do. I think the Court of Appeal has totally misdirected itself,
and has lost sight of the fact that the offence with which she was
charged was one of criminal damage to property, not of hurting
establishment feelings. And the actual damage was minimal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-
Others-Judgment.pdf
If farmers causing a similar nuisance aren't prosecuted, then is there a
case for thinking the JSO prosecutions are politically motivated ? Which
is my current view.
On 09/03/2025 11:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether
any of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press
has focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced
rather than the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was
furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences slashed >>> The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to eco-
zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert
Jenrick blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters
involved in disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
In relation to the "Sunflowers" case, the relevant points are:
quote
On 14 October 2022 two protesters threw soup onto Vincent van Gogh’s
painting known as “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery. They were
each convicted on 25 July 2024 of criminal damage contrary to s. 1(1)
of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appeal against the immediate
custodial sentences imposed on them on 27 September 2024 in the Crown
Court at Southwark by HHJ Hehir, namely:
i) Phoebe Plummer: 24 months’ imprisonment.
ii) Anna Holland: 20 months’ imprisonment.
In the Sunflowers case, the judge gave a careful ruling during the
course of trial in which he held that neither the conviction nor the
sentencing of the appellants engaged any issue of proportionality. In
his judgment, Articles 10 and 11 did not apply at all because i) the
actions of Ms Plummer and Mx Holland were violent and not peaceful;
and ii) they caused significant damage.
...we consider that Ms Plummer and Mx Holland’s actions engaged
Articles 10 and 11. While shocking, their actions were not violent.
For these reasons, Articles 10 and 11 were engaged on the facts of
the Sunflowers case (albeit significantly weakened).
The judge was fully entitled to place this offence in the high
culpability category. The appellants devised a plan to carry out a
particularly high profile stunt, they conducted reconnaissance, they
equipped themselves with what was needed, they spoke to a journalist
and they arranged for their activity to be filmed to maximise the
attendant
publicity. This was much more than just “Some planning”.
That's interesting. How does 'planning' affect what criminal damage
(the offence of which they were convicted) was actually caused? It
may indeed have been planning in order to minimise any actual damage,
eg by checking that it was in fact adequately protected from what they
intended to do (which it was).
The only actual 'damage' that was caused was not to the painting,
which wasn't even touched, but only if anything to the frame, which
probably needed a good clean anyway. And that hardly warranted a 2
year jail sentence.
Of course the sentiments of the establishment, who for some reason
like Van Gogh's rapid and garish daubs, were also being attacked,
which probably accounts for the harsh sentences. But I don't think
their hurt feelings actually come under the definition of the word
'property' as used in the Criminal Damage Act, so they shouldn't have
had any bearing on the matter.
First, it was submitted that there was no evidence that the painting
was at risk of damage. This was a factual issue which the trial judge
was well placed to assess and we see no reason to disagree with his
assessment that the reaction of the gallery staff indicated that they
considered that there was a risk of damage to the painting.
That's interesting too. Do other peoples' reactions affect the actual
damage for which one is convicted and sentenced?
Besides, the absence of any damage whatsoever to the painting means
they evaluated the risk, even if risk is at all relevant, totally
excessively.
Secondly, it was submitted that the judge misapplied s. 63 of the
Sentencing Act 2020.
We do not consider that Ms Plummer’s sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Well, I do. I think the Court of Appeal has totally misdirected
itself, and has lost sight of the fact that the offence with which she
was charged was one of criminal damage to property, not of hurting
establishment feelings. And the actual damage was minimal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-
Others-Judgment.pdf
I think yours might not be an opinion that reflects the majority view
but you have probably expressed the view of the Just Stop Oil movement
which I would guess might well try to finance an appeal to the Supreme
Court - which as you know, would be wholly futile.
There was no question of "hurting establishment feelings".
They took a
risk when throwing soup at a valuable work of art.
They didn't "evaluate
the risk" at all, because they were in no position to do so.
They
naively expected the glass cover to protect the painting from any
seepage and seemingly their guess proved to be right.
Guessing correctly
does not in any way reduce the seriousness of the crime.
It's not very
different from setting a work of art on fire in the confident belief
that the gallery staff will quickly use a fire extinguisher.
I suppose many of us would tolerate further disruption to our travel
plans in the cause of saving the planet. But many of us would deeply
resent any copycat attacks on major works of art. I think the prison sentences were well deserved, for the Sunflowers attack.
On 09/03/2025 11:36, Norman Wells wrote:
... I think the Court of Appeal has totally misdirected
itself, and has lost sight of the fact that the offence with which she
was charged was one of criminal damage to property, not of hurting
establishment feelings. And the actual damage was minimal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-
Others-Judgment.pdf
I think yours might not be an opinion that reflects the majority view
but you have probably expressed the view of the Just Stop Oil movement
which I would guess might well try to finance an appeal to the Supreme
Court - which as you know, would be wholly futile.
There was no question of "hurting establishment feelings". They took a
risk when throwing soup at a valuable work of art. They didn't "evaluate
the risk" at all, because they were in no position to do so. They
naively expected the glass cover to protect the painting from any
seepage and seemingly their guess proved to be right. Guessing correctly
does not in any way reduce the seriousness of the crime. It's not very different from setting a work of art on fire in the confident belief
that the gallery staff will quickly use a fire extinguisher.
I suppose many of us would tolerate further disruption to our travel
plans in the cause of saving the planet. But many of us would deeply
resent any copycat attacks on major works of art. I think the prison sentences were well deserved, for the Sunflowers attack.
A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if thewhy mention pregnancy, if all females are included anyway?
offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:
female
pregnant or post-natal
On 09/03/2025 18:38, kat wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
... Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently
complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the
Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to have >>> infected some of our own politicians.
She said that as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority she did
not see why she should get special treatment, that we should all be equal. >> Can you explain why she is wrong?
She is wrong because she has misunderstood the guidance from the
Sentencing Council or is carelessly misinterpreting it to mean that
members of an ethnic community should be somehow treated more leniently.
I think perhaps she is worried that the likes of the Daily Mail will misinterpret the guidance so instead of informing and educating the electorate, she pretends that the Daily Mail has got it right. Thereby proving that she is no pinko liberal justice secretary.
I'm not sure than any journalists have bothered to explain the new
guideline properly. It is often more newsworthy to pretend that a
controversy exists, than to play it down. But if you read the
guidelines you may decide that they are totally reasonable and do not
imply that anyone will get a "get out of gaol free" card. A pre-sentence report is to ensure that the convicted person gets a fair and objective hearing without unconscious bias on the part of the magistrates.
Those Guidelines Summarised: [quote]
A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the
offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:
at risk of first custodial sentence and/or at risk of a custodial sentence of 2 years or less (after taking into account any reduction for guilty plea)
a young adult (typically 18-25 years; see further information below
at section 3)
female (see further information below at section 3)
from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community
pregnant or post-natal
sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
Or if the court considers that one or more of the following may apply to
the offender:
has disclosed they are transgender
has or may have any addiction issues
has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability, or mental ill health, learning disabilities (including developmental disorders and neurodiverse conditions) or brain injury/damage
or; the court considers that the offender is, or there is a risk
that they may have been, a victim of:
domestic abuse, physical or sexual abuse, violent or
threatening behaviour, coercive or controlling behaviour, economic, psychological, emotional or any other abuse
modern slavery or trafficking, or
coercion, grooming, intimidation or exploitation.
This is a non-exhaustive list and a PSR can still be necessary if the individual does not fall into one of these cohorts.
[unquote]
On 09/03/2025 18:38, kat wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:41 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:24:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 09/03/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether any >>>>>>> of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press has >>>>>>> focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced rather >>>>>>> than
the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences >>>>>>> slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to >>>>>>> eco-zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists, >>>>>>> Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert Jenrick >>>>>>> blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters involved in >>>>>>> disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
It's a valid enough opinion and is probably very widely held. Why should >>>>>> a sympathetic newspaper not take that line?
The appeal court regularly decreases or increases sentences when it
finds that
the trial judge has erred in applying the rules. The main decrease was >>>>> from 4
to 3 years, hardly getting off scot free. Most cases were not altered. >>>>> The
reason was little to do with the actual crime.
I didn't claim that anyone was getting off "scot free". I pointed out
that many people would regard the reduction in the sentences as wrong. >>>> The implication is that the reduction would send a possibly (I don't go >>>> as far as "probably") a counter-productive message, leading to an
emboldening of those criminals and others tempted to commit copycat
crimes against the population.
That is a valid opinion. Well, unless it is now a given that no-one is >>>> allowed to have and expound an opinion which would not gain approbation >>>> below the line on the Guardian Opinion page, that is.
What has the Guardian got to do with it? Surely none of us should be
obtaining our opinions from our favourite newspapers?
The "outrage" is synthetic and hypocritical.
It certainly isn't synthetic. It will be sincerely and honestly held.
Please be humble enough to accept and appreciate that not everyone
thinks as you do.
And maybe you should be humble enough to accept and appreciate that the
task of sentencing an offender is a skill that involves training and
reference to past cases and to sentencing guidelines. The opinion of Joe >>> Public is therefore quite worthless. It would be like asking Joe Public
to vote on what the separation distance between incoming aircraft at
Heathrow ought to be, or some other specialised topic where a mistake
could have important ramifications.
Robert Jenrick is obviously one of those crowd-pleasing politicians who
tries to garner votes by saying that judges are stupid. Of course, he
isn't the only one. Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently
complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the
Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to have >>> infected some of our own politicians.
She said that as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority she did not >> see why she should get special treatment, that we should all be equal.
Can you explain why she is wrong?
She is wrong because she has misunderstood the guidance from the
Sentencing Council or is carelessly misinterpreting it to mean that
members of an ethnic community should be somehow treated more leniently.
I think perhaps she is worried that the likes of the Daily Mail will misinterpret the guidance so instead of informing and educating the electorate, she pretends that the Daily Mail has got it right. Thereby proving that she is no pinko liberal justice secretary.
I'm not sure than any journalists have bothered to explain the new
guideline properly. It is often more newsworthy to pretend that a
controversy exists, than to play it down. But if you read the
guidelines you may decide that they are totally reasonable and do not
imply that anyone will get a "get out of gaol free" card. A pre-sentence report is to ensure that the convicted person gets a fair and objective hearing without unconscious bias on the part of the magistrates.
Those Guidelines Summarised: [quote]
A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the
offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:
at risk of first custodial sentence and/or at risk of a custodial sentence of 2 years or less (after taking into account any reduction for guilty plea)
a young adult (typically 18-25 years; see further information below
at section 3)
female (see further information below at section 3)
from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community
pregnant or post-natal
sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
Or if the court considers that one or more of the following may apply to
the offender:
has disclosed they are transgender
has or may have any addiction issues
has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability, or mental ill health, learning disabilities (including developmental disorders and neurodiverse conditions) or brain injury/damage
or; the court considers that the offender is, or there is a risk
that they may have been, a victim of:
domestic abuse, physical or sexual abuse, violent or
threatening behaviour, coercive or controlling behaviour, economic, psychological, emotional or any other abuse
modern slavery or trafficking, or
coercion, grooming, intimidation or exploitation.
This is a non-exhaustive list and a PSR can still be necessary if the individual does not fall into one of these cohorts.
[unquote]
On 09/03/2025 08:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:36, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
... I think the Court of Appeal has totally misdirected
itself, and has lost sight of the fact that the offence with which she
was charged was one of criminal damage to property, not of hurting
establishment feelings. And the actual damage was minimal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-
Others-Judgment.pdf
I think yours might not be an opinion that reflects the majority view
but you have probably expressed the view of the Just Stop Oil movement
which I would guess might well try to finance an appeal to the Supreme
Court - which as you know, would be wholly futile.
There was no question of "hurting establishment feelings". They took a
risk when throwing soup at a valuable work of art. They didn't "evaluate
the risk" at all, because they were in no position to do so. They
naively expected the glass cover to protect the painting from any
seepage and seemingly their guess proved to be right. Guessing correctly
does not in any way reduce the seriousness of the crime. It's not very
different from setting a work of art on fire in the confident belief
that the gallery staff will quickly use a fire extinguisher.
I suppose many of us would tolerate further disruption to our travel
plans in the cause of saving the planet. But many of us would deeply
resent any copycat attacks on major works of art. I think the prison
sentences were well deserved, for the Sunflowers attack.
I don't believe that the majority of normal people with lives to lead,
people to see and places to go *would* tolerate any more of what we saw
a summer or so back. And there is no reason why they ought to.
You say "disruption to our travel plans" as though being held in a
stationary traffic jam for hours on rnd is a trivial matter to be
laughed off as a jolly jape.
If we wanted to be delayed, we'd travel by bus or train.
On 09/03/2025 20:27, The Todal wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:44, The Todal wrote:
The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment which assesses whether
any of the sentences were excessive. Perhaps predictably the Press
has focused its attention on the few sentences that were reduced
rather than the majority that were upheld. The Daily Mail was
furious. Quote:
"Outrage as eco-zealots win court appeal to have their sentences
slashed
The decision by appeal judges to slash jail terms handed down to
eco- zealots risks 'sending a dangerous message' to other activists,
Tories warned last night. The party's justice spokesman Robert
Jenrick blasted the reduction in sentences for six protesters
involved in disruptive motorway climate demonstrations". Unquote
In relation to the "Sunflowers" case, the relevant points are:
quote
On 14 October 2022 two protesters threw soup onto Vincent van Gogh’s >>>> painting known as “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery. They were
each convicted on 25 July 2024 of criminal damage contrary to s.
1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and appeal against the
immediate custodial sentences imposed on them on 27 September 2024
in the Crown Court at Southwark by HHJ Hehir, namely:
i) Phoebe Plummer: 24 months’ imprisonment.
ii) Anna Holland: 20 months’ imprisonment.
In the Sunflowers case, the judge gave a careful ruling during the
course of trial in which he held that neither the conviction nor the
sentencing of the appellants engaged any issue of proportionality.
In his judgment, Articles 10 and 11 did not apply at all because i)
the actions of Ms Plummer and Mx Holland were violent and not peaceful; >>>> and ii) they caused significant damage.
...we consider that Ms Plummer and Mx Holland’s actions engaged
Articles 10 and 11. While shocking, their actions were not violent.
For these reasons, Articles 10 and 11 were engaged on the facts of
the Sunflowers case (albeit significantly weakened).
The judge was fully entitled to place this offence in the high
culpability category. The appellants devised a plan to carry out a
particularly high profile stunt, they conducted reconnaissance, they
equipped themselves with what was needed, they spoke to a journalist
and they arranged for their activity to be filmed to maximise the
attendant
publicity. This was much more than just “Some planning”.
That's interesting. How does 'planning' affect what criminal damage
(the offence of which they were convicted) was actually caused? It
may indeed have been planning in order to minimise any actual damage,
eg by checking that it was in fact adequately protected from what
they intended to do (which it was).
The only actual 'damage' that was caused was not to the painting,
which wasn't even touched, but only if anything to the frame, which
probably needed a good clean anyway. And that hardly warranted a 2
year jail sentence.
Of course the sentiments of the establishment, who for some reason
like Van Gogh's rapid and garish daubs, were also being attacked,
which probably accounts for the harsh sentences. But I don't think
their hurt feelings actually come under the definition of the word
'property' as used in the Criminal Damage Act, so they shouldn't have
had any bearing on the matter.
First, it was submitted that there was no evidence that the painting
was at risk of damage. This was a factual issue which the trial
judge was well placed to assess and we see no reason to disagree
with his assessment that the reaction of the gallery staff indicated
that they considered that there was a risk of damage to the painting.
That's interesting too. Do other peoples' reactions affect the
actual damage for which one is convicted and sentenced?
Besides, the absence of any damage whatsoever to the painting means
they evaluated the risk, even if risk is at all relevant, totally
excessively.
Secondly, it was submitted that the judge misapplied s. 63 of the
Sentencing Act 2020.
We do not consider that Ms Plummer’s sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Well, I do. I think the Court of Appeal has totally misdirected
itself, and has lost sight of the fact that the offence with which
she was charged was one of criminal damage to property, not of
hurting establishment feelings. And the actual damage was minimal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-
Others-Judgment.pdf
I think yours might not be an opinion that reflects the majority view
but you have probably expressed the view of the Just Stop Oil movement
which I would guess might well try to finance an appeal to the Supreme
Court - which as you know, would be wholly futile.
Not necessarily. They'd have to get leave of course from either the
Court of Appeal or from the Supreme Court itself but if the Court of
Appeal has erred in its application of the law, eg by thinking that
other people's panicky reactions are relevant to a crime, then there
could be legitimate grounds on which to appeal.
There was no question of "hurting establishment feelings".
That's your opinion. Mine is different.
To me, the sentence seems greatly excessive having regard to the damage
that was actually caused, which is all that I say is relevant. And
that, if anything was to the frame not the picture.
They took a risk when throwing soup at a valuable work of art.
Maybe, but they didn't damage it, so there is nothing significant in
that. If you don't damage or destroy something, no offence of criminal damage has been committed. The clue is in the name.
Besides, if the painting had been properly protected from the public, as would be expected, and may well have been sussed out by the protestors
in their meticulous 'planning', the risk of damaging it could be very
low indeed. As indeed it proved.
They didn't "evaluate the risk" at all, because they were in no
position to do so.
The Court of Appeal made out that they did considerable planning. I
think the risk of causing damage was almost certainly evaluated as part
of that so as to maximise the protest but minimise their criminality.
They naively expected the glass cover to protect the painting from any
seepage and seemingly their guess proved to be right.
Glass covers on 'important' works of art are much more than just a sheet
you put over a photo of your gran. If you've ever seen the Mona Lisa in Paris, you'll appreciate it would take a nuclear bomb even to graze the surface.
Guessing correctly does not in any way reduce the seriousness of the
crime.
The crime is that of damaging or destroying.
It follows that no crime at all was committed in connection with the painting, which was not damaged in the slightest.
It's not very different from setting a work of art on fire in the
confident belief that the gallery staff will quickly use a fire
extinguisher.
Of course it is. There the painting is damaged or destroyed. That
would fall squarely within the scope of the Act.
I suppose many of us would tolerate further disruption to our travel
plans in the cause of saving the planet. But many of us would deeply
resent any copycat attacks on major works of art. I think the prison
sentences were well deserved, for the Sunflowers attack.
Perhaps you would outline exactly what law justifies imprisonment for a non-crime because others may commit actual crimes in the future?
On 09/03/2025 07:11 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 09/03/2025 18:38, kat wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
... Labour Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently
complained about new sentencing guidelines that were drawn up by the
Sentencing Council, a body of people far better informed and far
cleverer than she could ever be. She has even hinted that she might
abolish the Sentencing Council. So the spirit of Elon Musk seems to
have
infected some of our own politicians.
She said that as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority she did
not see why she should get special treatment, that we should all be
equal.
Can you explain why she is wrong?
She is wrong because she has misunderstood the guidance from the
Sentencing Council or is carelessly misinterpreting it to mean that
members of an ethnic community should be somehow treated more leniently.
For what possible purpose could a court be guided to take account of the
sex, substance addiction, gender-alignment, minority race or minority cultural background of an offender unless it were aimed at reducing the severity of the sentence?
I assume we can be fairly certain that the guidance is not aimed at increasing the sentences handed down to those groups. Or do you disagree
with that?
I think perhaps she is worried that the likes of the Daily Mail will
misinterpret the guidance so instead of informing and educating the
electorate, she pretends that the Daily Mail has got it right. Thereby
proving that she is no pinko liberal justice secretary.
And recognising that "right on" thought on these matters is not
acceptable to the majority of the population.
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the streets of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and mainstream climate
change campaigners have done. The media isn't going to report on a handful
of JSO activists waving a banner in Trafalgar Square. So in order to get noticed, they instead choose to break the law. They block major roads, they damage property. That's their choice, and they make that choice in full cognisance of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police,
and the courts, are treating them unfairly.
Mark
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the streets >> of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and mainstream climate
change campaigners have done. The media isn't going to report on a handful >> of JSO activists waving a banner in Trafalgar Square. So in order to get
noticed, they instead choose to break the law. They block major roads, they >> damage property. That's their choice, and they make that choice in full
cognisance of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police,
and the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many
millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
Our art galleries have wonderful teams of restorers who can often repair damage, even slashes to the canvas, so that the repair is invisible to
the naked eye. I don't think that the vandals who attack works of art
are entitled to rely on that expertise in order to reduce their prison sentences. But maybe the time will come when all works of art are locked
away and we only see reproductions or holograms in our galleries, and personally I wouldn't necessarily mind that, but I don't have a
particular fondness for art works.
The Todal quoted:
A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if thewhy mention pregnancy, if all females are included anyway?
offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:
female pregnant or post-natal
On 2025-03-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the streets >>> of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and mainstream climate
change campaigners have done. The media isn't going to report on a handful >>> of JSO activists waving a banner in Trafalgar Square. So in order to get >>> noticed, they instead choose to break the law. They block major roads, they >>> damage property. That's their choice, and they make that choice in full
cognisance of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police, >>> and the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many
millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed
solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
I doubt that, on the basis that I doubt that any noticeable number of
people know what their proposed solutions are, or even that they have
any.
On 09/03/2025 21:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/03/2025 20:27, The Todal wrote:
I suppose many of us would tolerate further disruption to our travel
plans in the cause of saving the planet. But many of us would deeply
resent any copycat attacks on major works of art. I think the prison
sentences were well deserved, for the Sunflowers attack.
Perhaps you would outline exactly what law justifies imprisonment for
a non-crime because others may commit actual crimes in the future?
So you are still trying to argue that throwing soup at a valuable work
of art is a "non-crime"?
Despite knowing that it certainly fulfils the requirements of "criminal damage" even if the soup can be wiped away?
Do you sympathise with the well known saying "when I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver"?
Our art galleries have wonderful teams of restorers who can often repair damage, even slashes to the canvas, so that the repair is invisible to
the naked eye. I don't think that the vandals who attack works of art
are entitled to rely on that expertise in order to reduce their prison sentences.
But maybe the time will come when all works of art are locked
away and we only see reproductions or holograms in our galleries, and personally I wouldn't necessarily mind that, but I don't have a
particular fondness for art works.
On 10 Mar 2025 at 10:54:17 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-03-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the
streets of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and
mainstream climate change campaigners have done. The media isn't
going to report on a handful of JSO activists waving a banner in
Trafalgar Square. So in order to get noticed, they instead choose
to break the law. They block major roads, they damage property.
That's their choice, and they make that choice in full cognisance
of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police, and
the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many
millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed
solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
I doubt that, on the basis that I doubt that any noticeable number of
people know what their proposed solutions are, or even that they have
any.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that the name gives some sort of clue
as to their strategy.
On 2025-03-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 10:54:17 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the
streets of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and
mainstream climate change campaigners have done. The media isn't
going to report on a handful of JSO activists waving a banner in
Trafalgar Square. So in order to get noticed, they instead choose
to break the law. They block major roads, they damage property.
That's their choice, and they make that choice in full cognisance
of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police, and
the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many
millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed
solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
I doubt that, on the basis that I doubt that any noticeable number of
people know what their proposed solutions are, or even that they have
any.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that the name gives some sort of clue
as to their strategy.
"Just Stop Oil" is a little vague as a strategy don't you think?
The Todal quoted:
A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if thewhy mention pregnancy, if all females are included anyway?
offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:
female pregnant or post-natal
On 2025-03-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 10:54:17 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the
streets of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and
mainstream climate change campaigners have done. The media isn't
going to report on a handful of JSO activists waving a banner in
Trafalgar Square. So in order to get noticed, they instead choose
to break the law. They block major roads, they damage property.
That's their choice, and they make that choice in full cognisance
of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police, and
the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many
millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed
solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
I doubt that, on the basis that I doubt that any noticeable number of
people know what their proposed solutions are, or even that they have
any.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that the name gives some sort of clue
as to their strategy.
"Just Stop Oil" is a little vague as a strategy don't you think?
On 10/03/2025 13:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 10:54:17 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-03-10, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 21:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
JSO's problem is that they don't have enough supporters to fill the >>>>>> streets of London in the way that farmers, Palestinians and
mainstream climate change campaigners have done. The media isn't
going to report on a handful of JSO activists waving a banner in
Trafalgar Square. So in order to get noticed, they instead choose
to break the law. They block major roads, they damage property.
That's their choice, and they make that choice in full cognisance
of the consequences. So they can hardly claim that the police, and >>>>>> the courts, are treating them unfairly.
There's no doubt that climate change is a very important issue. Many >>>>> millions of people in this country think that.
The reason that JSO don't have many supporters is that their proposed >>>>> solutions to climate change are very badly thought out.
I doubt that, on the basis that I doubt that any noticeable number of
people know what their proposed solutions are, or even that they have
any.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that the name gives some sort of clue
as to their strategy.
"Just Stop Oil" is a little vague as a strategy don't you think?
Perhaps they could be forgiven this was Scargill's policy, where more
coal mines would be (re)opened?
"Just Stop Oil" is a little vague as a strategy don't you think?
On 10/03/2025 13:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
"Just Stop Oil" is a little vague as a strategy don't you think?
Perhaps you can tease a bit more sense out of this web page:
https://juststopoil.org/the-plan/
"About us
Just Stop Oil is a nonviolent civil resistance group in the UK. In 2022
we started taking action to demand the UK Government stop licensing all
new oil, gas and coal projects. We have won on this ✅. Civil resistance works.
Our new demand: That the UK Government sign up to a Fossil Fuel Treaty
to Just Stop Oil by 2030.
Our governments must work together to establish a legally binding treaty
to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030 ..."
That's the strategy. There's no explanation attempted of how people will
be fed after 2030, when farmers can't plough their fields, and the food
can't be processed or delivered around the country. But, don't worry,
nobody will die of starvation, because they'll die of thirst first, as
the water companies won't be able to pump water without power.
Yes, there's a problem with climate change, and perhaps they are right
that oil-usage is genocidal in the long run. The problem is that the JSO solution is genocidal in the short run.
It's well-meaning, but naive, idiocy.
I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really matter - their point,
which is of course undoubtedly correct, is that climate change requires
that emergency action be taken immediately. Governments already know
full well the action they need to take, they're just not doing it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:54:25 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,869 |
| Posted today: | 1 |