18 Jul
5:57pm, 18 Jul 2024
22,688 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Cheg wrote: HappyG(rrr) wrote:I also agree that jailing climate protesters is disgraceful bbc.co.uk They're fighting for you and your children and grandchildren, you f-ing muppets. Grrr. They aren’t furthering their cause and are causing huge disruption. Lock them up. The question, I guess is where lawful protest ends and leads into unnecessary and harmful disruption and vandalism. I'm not sure I agree with where the line is currently drawn, but the law has currently drawn it somewhere. We can of course debate whether the line is in the right place. |
18 Jul
6:00pm, 18 Jul 2024
17,497 posts
|
jda
5 years for peaceful protest reportedly costing a million or so, what’s the appropriate tariff for the billions that Truss pissed up the wall with her disastrous budget?
|
|
18 Jul
6:02pm, 18 Jul 2024
22,689 posts
|
rf_fozzy
The difference is though, that as damaging as her actions were as PM, I don't think she actually broke any laws.
|
18 Jul
6:04pm, 18 Jul 2024
50,459 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
The law is wrong fozzy. 2022 - overreach by the government, demonising sincere protesters trying to open people's eyes to an existential and accelerating catastrophe.
|
18 Jul
6:06pm, 18 Jul 2024
32,793 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
"The government" makes laws. The judiciary applies them. I think the separation of powers principle explains why politicians should have limited say in the sentences handed down by the judiciary following due process. This cake is baked. I doubt there is any political capital to be gained by changing sentencing rules going forward. In fact, reducing this kind of thing to a minor offence (say) will mean it happens more often. I doubt people "really" want that to happen. |
18 Jul
6:06pm, 18 Jul 2024
4,299 posts
|
Cheg
No joke. I don’t do stupid winks or grrrs.
|
18 Jul
6:07pm, 18 Jul 2024
11,501 posts
|
Fields
Heseltine wanted Greenham common women shot if they entered the base. The protestors achieved their goal and got rid of the cruise missiles eventuallt.
|
|
18 Jul
6:07pm, 18 Jul 2024
22,690 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Also note I am not saying that civil disobediance to unjust laws in some cases is not warranted. (Before anyone puts words in my mouth). The helpful debate is if you don't think the line is in the right place now, where should it be? And why? Just how disruptive/harmful can a protest be (note: this does not just apply to climate protests) In the protests the protesters have been jailed for, economic damage was not the only harm. There were other real world harms too. Are these justified? I'm deliberately not arguing either way here. I don't think the line is in the right place, but I do think there necessarily has to be *some* limits somewhere. Otherwise you're into anarchic systems. |
|
18 Jul
6:07pm, 18 Jul 2024
11,502 posts
|
Fields
Cheg wrote: No joke. I don’t do stupid winks or grrrs. How much disruption do you think climate change will cause? Should we look up the fossil fuel executives and politicians for their part in causing the climate crisis? |
|
18 Jul
6:08pm, 18 Jul 2024
11,503 posts
|
Fields
If economic damage is a reason to jail someone, how can Truss and Kwarteng not be doing life sentences?
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
