Do we support Insulate Britain?

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Since when was breaching a court order a minor crime? Do you think people who breach restraining orders shouldn't be jailed either?

Superb levels of whataboutery there. What if they burned a car you no longer own? What if they beat up their ex? Got any more, for the lols and that.

 

[platinumsage]

Superb levels of whataboutery there. What if they burned a car you no longer own? What if they beat up their ex? Got any more, for the lols and that.

No, we're not talking about sentences for blocking motorways or domestic abuse, we're talking about sentences for violating a court order, which don't depend on whatever crimes led to that order being issued in the first place.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

No, we're not talking about sentences for blocking motorways or domestic abuse, we're talking about sentences for violating a court order, which don't depend on whatever crimes led to that order being issued in the first place.

No, they are in prison for blocking motorways, an act which was banned by a court order.


Are you one of these cunts who supports women being banged up for non payment of TV licences?

 

[8ball]

Are you one of these cunts who supports women being banged up for non payment of TV licences?

You were just throwing accusations of whataboutery around, right?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

You were just throwing accusations of whataboutery around, right?

Yep. Whatabout it?

 

[cupid_stunt]

No, they are in prison for blocking motorways, an act which was banned by a court order.


Are you one of these cunts who supports women being banged up for non payment of TV licences?

No, they are in prison for 'Contempt of Court', that's the crime, and is considered to be serious, as set out in the 'Contempt of Court Act, 1981'.

And, there's no way the High Court would have handed out a community service order, when they made it clear that would continue to be in 'Contempt of Court', and just end-up straight back in court.

 

[kabbes]

Breaking High Court injunctions are taken very seriously, as they were fully aware of, to stand up in court and say you will continue to do so, is not going to go down well, is it?

This is begging the question. Why is injunction-breaking taken seriously? Because it is. It’s legitimate, however, to query whether it should be.

The reason breaking an injunction is taken so seriously is because it is a threat to the state rather than an individual, and it’s the state who gets to set the rules. Sorry, but I don’t have to go along with that as a good reason.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

No, they are in prison for 'Contempt of Court', that's the crime, and is considered to be serious, as set out in the 'Contempt of Court Act, 1981'.

And, there's no way the High Court would have handed out a community service order, when they made it clear that would continue to be in 'Contempt of Court', and just end-up straight back in court.

And all those women whose lives were destroyed were inside for not paying the court ordered fine for non payment of TV licences. Only a twat would argue that they are not there for non payment of the fucking TV licence. This crowd are being done for blocking motorways, as when they started the state realised that there was nothing much they could do about it, other than this injunction bullshit.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, they are in prison for 'Contempt of Court', that's the crime, and is considered to be serious, as set out in the 'Contempt of Court Act, 1981'.

And, there's no way the High Court would have handed out a community service order, when they made it clear that would continue to be in 'Contempt of Court', and just end-up straight back in court.

Yeh. And what is it they did to breach the injunction?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yeh. And what is it they did to breach the injunction?

Hiding behind contempt of court or non-payment of fines is the refuge of scoundrels.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And all those women whose lives were destroyed were inside for not paying the court ordered fine for non payment of TV licences. Only a twat would argue that they are not there for non payment of the fucking TV licence. This crowd are being done for blocking motorways, as when they started the state realised that there was nothing much they could do about it, other than this injunction bullshit.

I don't believe in people being jailed for non-payment of small fines, there're other options available, this matter is far more serious.

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Chamberlain, imposed jail sentences of between three and six months, saying: “The blocking of a junction on a major motorway could be expected to and was intended to cause serious inconvenience to a large number of people.”

She said the action was taken with a “conscientious motive”, but said the group had “broken the social contract under which in a democratic society the public can properly be expected to tolerate such peaceful protest.

“This was bound to give rise to frustration and anger”, she added, saying the action had risked the safety of protestors and others.

In her sentencing remarks, Dame Victoria said the protestors had sought to present themselves as “martyrs” but the right to protest can only be tolerated “up to a point”.

“Ordinary members of the public have rights too, including the right to use the highways,” she said.

“The public’s toleration of peaceful protest depends on an understanding that, in a society subject to the rule of law, the balance between the protestor’s right to protest and the right of members of the public to use the highways is to be determined not by the say-so of the protestors, but according to the law, as applied in the circumstances of the particular case by independent and impartial courts.”

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I don't believe in people being jailed for non-payment of small fines, there're other options available, this matter is far more serious.

"You are doing something for which you can't be jailed. Carry on doing it and you'll be jailed."


Does that not strike you as wrong?

 

[gosub]

"You are doing something for which you can't be jailed. Carry on doing it and you'll be jailed."


Does that not strike you as wrong?

Nope sounds like clear cut contempt to me

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't believe in people being jailed for non-payment of small fines, there're other options available, this matter is far more serious.

So why weren't they charged for obstruction of the highway?

 

[8ball]

"You are doing something for which you can't be jailed. Carry on doing it and you'll be jailed."


Does that not strike you as wrong?

Must say I don't really think in terms of "right and wrong" when it comes to the legal system.
This is just the escalation that is to be expected when power is directly challenged.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Must say I don't really think in terms of "right and wrong" when it comes to the legal system.
This is just the escalation that is to be expected when power is directly challenged.

Doesn't mean it should be accepted though.

 

[8ball]

Doesn't mean it should be accepted though.

They had already accepted the idea of going to prison before they got started.
One of them said in court that he would keep doing it unless imprisoned, and got what he wanted.

I suppose they could have been let off to immediately block the roads again, but I can't see that being a popular result.

I don't think the judge had the power to insulate everyone's homes, which would appear to be the only third option.

 

[kabbes]

Nope sounds like clear cut contempt to me

What’s actually wrong with having contempt? Why is it so bad that somebody should go to jail for it as a crime in its own right? Again, you’re just begging the question, so used to the idea that showing contempt for court is a heinous crime that you just take it as a given that showing contempt is worthy of whatever punishment they say it gets.

I don’t see why a minor misdemeanour becomes worthy of jail just because of a lack of deference to the institutions of state. There are far worse things that don’t get jail time.

 

[platinumsage]

Reminds me of the naked rambler. Deliberately annoy the rest of society enough and you'll get put away.

 

[kabbes]

They had already accepted the idea of going to prison before they got started.
One of them said in court that he would keep doing it unless imprisoned, and got what he wanted.

I suppose they could have been let off to immediately block the roads again, but I can't see that being a popular result.

I don't think the judge had the power to insulate everyone's homes, which would appear to be the only third option.

Why is it the judge’s problem to police what happens next? He committed a misdemeanour, he got a punishment for it. If he does it again, let the police deal with it. It shouldn’t be the judge’s job to do whatever it takes to prevent him repeating his act.

 

[gosub]

What’s actually wrong with having contempt? Why is it so bad that somebody should go to jail for it as a crime in its own right? Again, you’re just begging the question, so used to the idea that showing contempt for court is a heinous crime that you just take it as a given that showing contempt is worthy of whatever punishment they say it gets.

I don’t see why a minor misdemeanour becomes worthy of jail just because of a lack of deference to the institutions of state. There are far worse things that don’t get jail time.

Contempt is there as learning curve.
Come back when you respect the seriousness of your situation.

 

[8ball]

Why is it the judge’s problem to police what happens next? He committed a misdemeanour, he got a punishment for it. If he does it again, let the police deal with it. It shouldn’t be the judge’s job to do whatever it takes to prevent him repeating his act.

The judge's opinions about liability to re-offend are commonly taken into account when sentencing.

 

[kabbes]

Contempt is there as learning curve.
Come back when you respect the seriousness of your situation.

You’re still taking it as a given that this should be the case

I think it’s an (unsurprising) abuse of power to punish people for not taking you seriously enough. Why is not taking something seriously a crime in its own right?

 

[kabbes]

The judge's opinions about liability to re-offend are commonly taken into account when sentencing.

He didn’t get sentenced for the misdemeanour itself though, did he? He got sentenced for contempt.

 

[platinumsage]

You’re still taking it as a given that this should be the case

I think it’s an (unsurprising) abuse of power to punish people for not taking you seriously enough. Why is not taking something seriously a crime in its own right?

If I knock on your door and say "Hi kabbes, just wanted to say hi" once you'll probably be mildly annoyed. If I do it every three minutes 24/7 for ever you'll want to make me stop. Just because the actual one-off action doesn't warrant a restraining order, doesn't mean that you won't eventually get fed up enough by it's repetition to try and obtain one.

 

[MickiQ]

IB are an offshoot of XR, whose strategy is to get as many arrested as possible and enough people have been willing to do that. People seem to feel quite strongly about for the forthcoming collapse of the planet's ecosystems, amazingly with more passion than people supporting pirate radio or weed do, two activities that carried on unabated regardless of court edicts.

People do feel a lot more strongly about environmental issues these days and it is certainly an issue that is much more 'front and centre' in politics. The downside of this is that nutty fringe groups (who have always been with us) have a tendency to try and legitimise their actions by declaring their green credentials or claiming 'they're saving the planet' . IB and XB definitely fall into this category as far as I can see.
The irony of IB is that their stated aim of a large scale policy of insulating homes isn't really all that radical. Had they been willing to be take a longer term view and be less confrontational they might very well have got somewhere with it.

Doesn't mean it should be accepted though.

Yes it should, the court system imperfect though it may be is preferable to the alternative which is anarchy.

Why is it the judge’s problem to police what happens next? He committed a misdemeanour, he got a punishment for it. If he does it again, let the police deal with it. It shouldn’t be the judge’s job to do whatever it takes to prevent him repeating his act.

Because it will go round and round like the Magic Roundabout, guy walks out of the courtroom, blocks the road, walks out of the courtroom, blocks the road, walks out of the courtroom, blocks the road until someone runs him over or he dies of old age.
Both the judge and the police are parts of the same system and acting otherwise makes a mockery of it.

 

[8ball]

He didn’t get sentenced for the misdemeanour itself though, did he? He got sentenced for contempt.

Yes, see what I said before about power and escalation.
I was answering your question about whether "what happens next" is the business of the judge.

 

[gosub]

You’re still taking it as a given that this should be the case

I think it’s an (unsurprising) abuse of power to punish people for not taking you seriously enough. Why is not taking something seriously a crime in its own right?

Think it can be a necessary use of power myself. Though you are at liberty to bancrupt yourself and/ or escape and spend the rest of life on the run if you want to, failing that come back once you've a better grasp of your circumstance.

 

[kabbes]

If I knock on your door and say "Hi kabbes, just wanted to say hi" once you'll probably be mildly annoyed. If I do it every three minutes 24/7 for ever you'll want to make me stop. Just because the actual one-off action doesn't warrant a restraining order, doesn't mean that you won't eventually get fed up enough by it's repetition to try and obtain one.

But the repetition could be judged as an aggressive act in its own right. It doesn’t require the concept of contempt to be involved.

 

[kabbes]

Yes, see what I said before about power and escalation.
I was answering your question about whether "what happens next" is the business of the judge.

It is the business of the judge in imposing a sentence for a crime, yes. That’s not what is happening here, though. In this case, the man is getting a custodial sentence for committing the crime of contempt, end of story. And people are so used to the idea of this being normal that they are arguing it is appropriate merely because that’s the way it works. As if they way it works is an act of God rather than being an invention of the state.