OV9

that's an absurd reduction of the argument and you know it Mik.

IMO If a judge who favours heavy sentences for climate protestors purely because they are protesting, they see the protesting as more of an issue than climate change. would that not be fair?

It's all just opinion but I don't think that TSB's replies are an amazing dunk on JSO.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 8:59 am that's an absurd reduction of the argument and you know it Mik.

IMO If a judge who favours heavy sentences for climate protestors purely because they are protesting, they see the protesting as more of an issue than climate change. would that not be fair?

It's all just opinion but I don't think that TSB's replies are an amazing dunk on JSO.

It's not "Because they are protesting"... It's "How they are protesting"...

Is that really that hard to see ???

@ZedLeg I believe JSO have complained that the recent sentencing of Plummer & Holland is unjustifiably heavy - I'm not a legal professional so I don't know, but I haven't personally seen anything that confirms this assertion to be true.

(FWIW I did read the sentencing remarks)

The judge has a remit of assessing the case in front them, which in this case is judging if protestors acted in a way that would cause damage. They could have been protesting about any subject on earth, and the cause has zero relevance to the behaviour of the protestors. You cannot apoly some kind of arbritrary proportionality to allow protestors to cause damage, based purely on how important you believe the subject to be. I think that child slaves in the chocolate supply chain is awful and so should you, unless you actively support child abuse? What level of criminal damage are we allowed to enact to protest against child abuse? Can I smear ganache onto your car after you’ve eaten a dairy milk? Or slash your tires when you eat an Freddo? That tweet is no more than whataboutism.

dinny_g wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:10 am

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 8:59 am that's an absurd reduction of the argument and you know it Mik.

IMO If a judge who favours heavy sentences for climate protestors purely because they are protesting, they see the protesting as more of an issue than climate change. would that not be fair?

It's all just opinion but I don't think that TSB's replies are an amazing dunk on JSO.

It's not "Because they are protesting"... It's "How they are protesting"...

Is that really that hard to see ???

If the fact that they're protesting is part of why he's giving the sentences he is, what they are protesting is relevant imo.

I think Gav has answered that better than I could ...

Interestingly I saw an argument on twitter yesterday about cocaine and one of the (valid) arguments against coke as a product is the shocking treatment of the workforce, that argument also stands for iphones though.

People always argue from a viewpoint they think is logical. being reductive about murder and child abuse doesn't automatically make me wrong about this particular judge and my opinion on his views.

But do you believe that if one of these protests is ultimately successful - that some art piece or artefact is successfully destroyed buy a JSO protester, that this will lead to success in their campaign, to less Oil being used etc ??

That, to me, is totally illogical.

The object of the protests isn't to damage artwork. No one has ever said that.

The big difference is between how our opinions overlap in a discussion about the subject vs how law works in a court, because they're very different situations.

Bang the fuckers up I say, inconsiderate cretins. Maybe while they're having their sabbaticals at his majesties pleasure they'll think of a way to contribute in a positive manner to the climate debate instead of trying to destroy things.

I get that and IANAL, I don't think sending a young woman to jail for at least 10 months for damaging a picture frame is a particularly useful thing to do though.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:25 am The object of the protests isn't to damage artwork. No one has ever said that.

The frames are part of the Artwork and have been damaged on more than one occasion.

But Gav is right - believing something is right doesn't make it right, no matter how high the moral ground you think you stand on. As one of the judges said "You clearly think your beliefs give you the right to commit crimes when you feel like it. You do not.". That is the Law and while JSO supports continue to protest the way that they do, then the punishments will continue.

Personally, I get frustrated with them because they are doing the environment more harm than good with the types of protests they continue to undertake. They will NOT alter individual behaviour to the degree that it needs to change by doing what they do and, as the self appointed guardians of the future, they have a responsibility to be better

It's a stretch to say frames are part of the artwork. Painters rarely sell their work framed. Also they didn't deliberately damage them.

I don't agree with a lot of what JSO do either tbh. I just can't stand the way folk who don't like them sneer.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:48 am It's a stretch to say frames are part of the artwork. Painters rarely sell their work framed. Also they didn't deliberately damage them.

Some of these frames are hundreds of years old and have accompanied the artwork for centuries - and to say that the didn't believe super-glueing their hands to the frame wouldn't cause damage is laughable.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:48 am It's a stretch to say frames are part of the artwork. Painters rarely sell their work framed. Also they didn't deliberately damage them.

A £10k 17th century frame is most definitely artwork in itself. just because they were too stupid to realise this doesn’t make it ok.

and sending them to prison is entirely appropriate - as we’ve seen what happens otherwise - they’ll just do it again.

It's splitting hairs, the frame isn't part of the artwork. It's furniture.

I'd prefer to see these kinds of things punished with community service or something tbh. Have them scrub graffiti.

Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:54 am

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:48 am It's a stretch to say frames are part of the artwork. Painters rarely sell their work framed. Also they didn't deliberately damage them.

A £10k 17th century frame is most definitely artwork in itself. just because they were too stupid to realise this doesn’t make it ok.

and sending them to prison is entirely appropriate - as we’ve seen what happens otherwise - they’ll just do it again.

They're going to do it again anyway because they believe they're right. All we've done by send them to jail is spend £110 a day to put them at high risk of assault.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:59 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:54 am

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:48 am It's a stretch to say frames are part of the artwork. Painters rarely sell their work framed. Also they didn't deliberately damage them.

A £10k 17th century frame is most definitely artwork in itself. just because they were too stupid to realise this doesn’t make it ok.

and sending them to prison is entirely appropriate - as we’ve seen what happens otherwise - they’ll just do it again.

They're going to do it again anyway because they believe they're right. All we've done by send them to jail is spend £110 a day to put them at high risk of assault.

And hopefully made 100 others consider if vandalism is the best option.

It won't