The Protest Thread.

[mik]

People like Brian Pearce should be getting more attention. Tirelessly works to turn a load of ruined land into an amazing wildlife reservation.

He also fully understands how the world works as apposed to overly emotional idiots.

Much respect. There seems to be a thing these days where it is considered OK to stamp your feet and vigorously express your dissatisfaction, without offering any workable alternative. Apparently that’s up to scientists/politicians/someone else to work out. The Thunberg model.

As someone who tends to look for solutions, I struggle with this.

[ZedLeg]

I’m a big fan of this guy preserving acres of temperate rainforest and campaigning for rewilding Ireland.

https://x.com/irishrainforest?s=21

[ZedLeg]

Also one of my favourite authors bought land in Florida which they’ve been working on. Their trail camera is wonderful.

https://www.instagram.com/jeff_vanderme ... NlMHJzazl1

[duncs500]

Fun catching up on this thread, would read again.

Thanks for the positivity at the end though! It's a shame these things don't get more press. When the media reports JSO's antics they should always run a concurrent inspirational piece on the good things someone is doing to make a difference of the same size right next to it. It would soon make JSO look very silly.

[dinny_g]

Lots of good stuff...

There are two issues at play here -

1. If the previous government was attempting to introduce legislation to suppress protest in an attempt subdue and control, then this will be unraveled by the new government if they deem it the will of the people

2. Unsanctioned protests that have, as their central tenet, the mass disruption of large groups of people or the destruction of property should be dealt with harshly and to the full extent of the law. No exceptions

They're not linked

The harsh punishment of number 2 should remain but laws changed to ensure, say teachers can to continue to protest outside the school without fear. But the blocking or intimidation of Oil Executives as they go about their daily lives falls under number 2 in my opinion. As does the verbal intimidation of Teachers crossing a picket line

[ZedLeg]

The soup throwers are going to jail too

https://x.com/juststop_oil/status/18164 ... 40977?s=46

[Rich B]

they’re basically very openly putting two fingers up to the law and expecting leniency.

if you filmed yourself driving at 120mph with your face grinning at the camera, then posted the video on the local police’s twitter account with a title “fuck the pigs” - guess what, they’d also probably hang you out to dry.

[ZedLeg]

Meh, I’ve said my piece.

[Rich B]

i’m not commenting on whether i agree with the number of years these people have been/may be sent down for, only that they can expect the maximum allowed - or it’s a green light for more of the same.

[ZedLeg]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

[Rich B]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

[mik]

Well they say it was soup, but how do we know it was soup and not something else? Something more sinister? Something more corrosive? Something more deadly? Something just fucking rank, like prawn cocktail?

Have they provided chemical analysis to prove their claims? Have experts seen this? Have you personally seen it?

[Gavster]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

I agree they’re guilty however think that jail time is excessive for this case. Suspended sentence fine, but custodial time is a bit strong.

[Rich B]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

I agree they’re guilty however think that jail time is excessive for this case. Suspended sentence fine, but custodial time is a bit strong.

i expect they’ll get 3 months.

[Beany]

From what I can find (most of which is highly polarised / hyperbolic, because of course) it sounds like they were going to try to use the defence of proportional action (IE that the risk of climate change and the governments inaction on it justifies causing thousands of pounds of damage to an extremely valuable frame, to draw attention to that risk) and the judge may not have accepted that as a valid defence and thus struck it out.

Which the judge is entitled to do if they think the position isn't applicable, or if it isn't valid to the court/relevant etc.

Interesting page on this:
https://hallellis.co.uk/strike-out-applications/

The basic purpose of statements of case (ie particulars of claim or a defence) is straightforward.

They enable the opposing party to know what case is being made against them. They must contain enough detail to enable the other party to prepare to answer it, from a legal perspective.

A successful strike out application against a:

claimant means that they:
have lost all or part of their claim, and
probably must pay the costs of the defendant

defendant means that:
the pleaded defence does not contain a defence known to law, and
subject to further order of the court, judgment is entered for the claimant.

(my highlighting, just to make it bit clearer where I'm going with this)

So if their entire defence was 'but the climate', how is the opposing party supposed to answer that? Is it even worth the courts time? Is it serious or unserious etc.

They were certainly allowed to express their sincerely held beliefs under cross examination, at least, so the idea that they were denied a fair trial and had their human rights breached...eh, I'm a bit dubious on that. Getting bad legal advice isn't a defence either (literally in this case, it would seem)

I think the actual sentencing hearing will be a bit more revealing in terms of whether the above was the case, whether the judge felt they were wasting the courts time, etc and it'll be interesting to see if the claims of 'shit judge' stand up.

If it was a genuine attempt at a defence then I'd not expect them to be long in prison, but I think one of them has been inside before for similar actions and has been quite unapologetic about it so that won't help 'em.

[ZedLeg]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

Hard to argue that it’s vandalism/criminal damage when there was no damage. They’re being punished for protesting.

[ZedLeg]

Well they say it was soup, but how do we know it was soup and not something else? Something more sinister? Something more corrosive? Something more deadly? Something just fucking rank, like prawn cocktail?

Have they provided chemical analysis to prove their claims? Have experts seen this? Have you personally seen it?

I have not Mik, it might have been bovril for all I know

[Rich B]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

Hard to argue that it’s vandalism/criminal damage when there was no damage. They’re being punished for protesting.

apart from the damage to the 17th century frame that i expect had to be cleaned by an expensive specialist.

[Gavster]

I'm glad you mentioned using the law to tackle climate change, it's reminded me of another reason why JSO look like muppets. While they were playing with their lunch in an art gallery in the hope they would get their mugshot in the Daily Mail, another bunch of people were literally taking the government to court and winning, due to inadequacies in the climate strategy under the Climate Act. This is the kind of climate action I have huge respect for.

https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news ... -strategy/

The JSO defence sounds like clutching at straws. The costs of failure to act on climate change probably extend into many billions, although it entirely depends on how it's estimated, as we can't get a builder to produce a quote to build another planet or buy one from Waitrose. So firstly, any costs/losses can only ever be guesstimates. Secondly, if the judge accepted that defence, then surely it would give a free licence for JSO or any other climate activist to do some pretty wild shit in the future, as long as the damage they cause is than a few $$$bn

[Beany]

Sending people to jail for throwing soup onto a bit of perspex near a painting is another example of how profoundly unserious our slide into authoritarianism is

Vandalism/criminal damage has always* been a crime with a possible prison sentence - no change there.

Hard to argue that it’s vandalism/criminal damage when there was no damage. They’re being punished for protesting.

Now, that just isn't true.

The thirty year veteran frame conservator for the National Gallery stated that the frame had sustained substantial damage from the tomato soup. That's the basis of the charge against them.

Frame conservator Isabella Kocum said in a statement read to jurors: 'I was shocked and dismayed by the extent of corrosion this tomato soup had caused to the exquisite antique frame.

'The frame was specifically chosen for Van Gogh's painting because of the matching coloration.'

'I remain amazed at how corrosive the soup was to the frame.'

'Even once the majority of the soup had been removed, I was alarmed to see that the remainder was acting like a paint stripper in front of my eyes.'

If they wanted to question the value of the frame, or the cost of the damage/repair itself, or whether it would be commonly accepted/expected that tomato soup could cause that sort of damage (IE even the conservator didn't expect it, etc), that would have been be a valid defence, especially given the charge was specifically of causing criminal damage to a value over £5k.

But they don't appear to have done so.