Do we support Insulate Britain?

[8ball]

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.

I wasn't arguing about appropriateness in any moral sense. I was just pointing out that it's a natural outcome of a State that needs to defend its claim of monopoly on violence.

You raised a point about whether this should be accepted. I'd say acceptance of this state of affairs was implied by the outburst which effectively was a command to be sent to prison.

 

[Spymaster]

Like ‘em or loathe them this is a ballsy as fuck statement to make to the High Court:

Taylor told the court that if the judges did not send him to prison he would “go out and block the highway at the earliest opportunity”, adding: “And I will continue to do so until the government makes a meaningful statement and fucking acts on it,” he said, spurring a rebuke from Sharp for his language.

“If you send me away to prison, 10 people will step forward in my place,” Taylor said. “If you send each of us away, 100 people will step forward and take our places. If you send 100 of us away, 1,000 people will step forward to take our place.

“If you somehow manage to stop all non-violent protests, then things will only turn violent.”

Well that worked didn't it?

Ballsy as fuck, my arse!

The bloke's a fucking bellend extraordinaire. See how he feels when he gets out of stir and finds that as opposed to 10 people taking his place, support for this nonsense has melted away like snow on a stove!

Silly cunt.

 

[gosub]

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.

Judicary are independant of the State. When my mum was a court reproter she had one who had the Head of the DVLA summonded to explain why his court was being mucked about.

 

[kabbes]

I wasn't arguing about appropriateness in any moral sense. I was just pointing out that it's a natural outcome of a State that needs to defend its claim of monopoly on violence.

You raised a point about whether this should be accepted. I'd say acceptance of this state of affairs was implied by the outburst which effectively was a command to be sent to prison.

Oh yes, it’s unsurprising that the state acts to defend itself, like a wasp reacting to so attack on its nest. My objection is to people clapping it on when it does so.

 

[8ball]

Oh yes, it’s unsurprising that the state acts to defend itself, like a wasp reacting to so attack on its nest. My objection is to people clapping it on when it does so.

Agree there. I see it was actually Bahnhof who raised the first point about whether it should be accepted.
Which brings it back round to your point I suppose - ie. there is a difference between accepting something and siding with it.

The standard legal justification of the concept of “contempt of court” is related to other offences involving interfering with the court’s ability to function. Whether things such as “chewing gum and looking sullen” should come under this umbrella is up for debate.

 

[Spymaster]

"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?

Of course not. It's a perfectly reasonable warning.

 

[Spymaster]

Ridiculous assertion.

 

[8ball]

Ridiculous assertion.

Is this just a placeholder that you’ll be updating later? Best to follow the style guide and use pointy brackets.

Eg.

<insert strawmanning attempt here>

 

[MickiQ]

Oh yes, it’s unsurprising that the state acts to defend itself, like a wasp reacting to so attack on its nest. My objection is to people clapping it on when it does so.

The power of the state also defends individuals against each other, An order keeping an abusive husband away from his ex would be pretty pointless if the courts had no power to jail him for ignoring their order.
There needs to be a 'state' i.e. an actor who is stronger than any individual and can thus protect rights that individuals cannot protect themselves. There are certainly arguments for improved accountability, greater democratic control etc but it still needs to exist since there is always going to a certain percentage of the population that will always consider themselves not bound by whatever rules the rest agree to.

 

[andysays]

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.

Some might argue that the matter which they're protesting about is also quite serious.

We can argue the toss about whether their protest is likely to be effective, whether some of them are unpleasant or delusional individuals, or even whether their actions are pissing off "actual working class people", but anyone who still thinks that the issue at the root of these protests isn't one of the most serious we currently face really hasn't been paying attention.

So if I have to pick a side between the protesters being sent down today and the state and various other powerful interests opposing them, I know who gets my support.

 

[kabbes]

The power of the state also defends individuals against each other, An order keeping an abusive husband away from his ex would be pretty pointless if the courts had no power to jail him for ignoring their order.
There needs to be a 'state' i.e. an actor who is stronger than any individual and can thus protect rights that individuals cannot protect themselves. There are certainly arguments for improved accountability, greater democratic control etc but it still needs to exist since there is always going to a certain percentage of the population that will always consider themselves not bound by whatever rules the rest agree to.

There are ways to achieve all these things without normalising the idea that contempt of court is more serious than various crimes that injure actual people in the real world. You can deal with the specific harm, rather than placing it through the lens of a legal fiction.

 

[MickiQ]

There are ways to achieve all these things without normalising the idea that contempt of court is more serious than various crimes that injure actual people in the real world. You can deal with the specific harm, rather than placing it through the lens of a legal fiction.

Such as what? How would you prevent this guy from going and blocking the road again?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Judicary are independant of the State.

Are you taking the piss?

Family, Mags, Crown (clue in the name there), Supreme; all the courts have the coat of arms of the head of fucking state slapped on the wall behind the top judge's head.

 

[cupid_stunt]

So if I have to pick a side between the protesters being sent down today and the state and various other powerful interests opposing them, I know who gets my support.

My support is for the rights of the majority of the general public to go about their business, without a tiny handful of protesters taking things beyond what is reasonable, and causing misery to thousands.

The general public have rights too.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Of course not. It's a perfectly reasonable warning.

Lickspittle.

 

[andysays]

My support is for the rights of the majority of the general public to go about their business, without a tiny handful of protesters taking things beyond what is reasonable, and causing misery to thousands.

The general public have rights too.

TBH, I think the idea that these protesters are genuinely causing misery to thousands is in itself a nonsense spread by the state and various other powerful interests opposing them.

It's a shame that you and other posters here who like to think of themselves as progressive or anti-authoritarian or even as having the ability to judge for themselves rather than being taken in by ideological propaganda have apparently been taken in to the extent you have.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

My support is for the rights of the majority of the general public to go about their business, without a tiny handful of protesters taking things beyond what is reasonable, and causing misery to thousands.

The general public have rights too.

How long should Reclaim the Streets have got?

 

[MickiQ]

There are no powerful interests opposing them, they make think there is but there isn't. The people they think they''re sticking it to don't care about them at all. A handful of self-centred nuts gluing themselves to the streets isn't challenging the social order it's just annoying other people who may or may not want the changes these clowns claim they want.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are no powerful interests opposing them, they make think there is but there isn't. The people they think they''re sticking it to don't care about them at all. A handful of self-centred nuts gluing themselves to the streets isn't challenging the social order it's just annoying other people who may or may not want the changes these clowns claim they want.

If that's the case then why don't the government just come out and say that? Why don't they sat 'we're on your side, there's no need to glue yourselves to the road and police vehicles, let us work together to publicise the insulation campaign' if as you say they're pushing at an open door

 

[platinumsage]

How long should Reclaim the Streets have got?

They didn't annoy the populace sufficiently to get this sort of injunction, which is only possible to get if you deliberately want to put yourself in prison to prove a point, like the naked rambler.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

They didn't annoy the populace sufficiently to get this sort of injunction, which is only possible to get if you deliberately want to put yourself in prison to prove a point, like the naked rambler.

Ehrm, repeatedly blocking roads, each time for far longer than IB, including one time planting a fucking tree in the middle of the carriageway of a motorway. So why do you think the populace was not sufficiently annoyed then but are now? Apart from the Mail not calling RTS "eco-zealots".

 

[platinumsage]

Ehrm, repeatedly blocking roads, each time for far longer than IB, including one time planting a fucking tree in the middle of the carriageway of a motorway. So why do you think the populace was not sufficiently annoyed then but are now? Apart from the Mail not calling RTS "eco-zealots".

Following your/kabbes's argument, the state must have been less threatened by an organised group of anarchists than they are by a few middle class egotist guardian readers.

 

[MickiQ]

If that's the case then why don't the government just come out and say that? Why don't they sat 'we're on your side, there's no need to glue yourselves to the road and police vehicles, let us work together to publicise the insulation campaign' if as you say they're pushing at an open door

Because it has no need to do that either, why should it? the population isn't clamouring for it or demanding the government do anything, so why should a Govt that has just run up £2Trillion in public debt spend billions more to pacify a handful of noisy nobodies? If IB had focussed on getting the public to support them rather just trying to alienate them, they might have got much better results.

 

[Spymaster]

Lots of utter bollocks being posted here by people who really should know better. Contempt of court laws are also an enforcement device to prevent those convicted of offences from ignoring court rulings. The usual Urban75 hypocrisy is on show here in spades. When climate twats get on the wrong side of CoC, such laws are the embodiment of state power abuse, but when Tommy Robinson gets jailed for the same, they're the best thing since sliced bread and cause for celebration!

 

[Pickman's model]

Because it has no need to do that either, why should it? the population isn't clamouring for it or demanding the government do anything, so who should a Govt that has just run up £2Trillion in public debt spend billions more to pacify a handful of noisy nobodies? If IB had focussed on getting the public to support them rather just trying to alienate them, they might have got much better results.

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read on the internet and as I'm sure you can imagine that's up against some stiff competition.

Should we really be a society where things only get done when people clamour for them? Should everything be done at the last minute? That's the sort of approach which leads to calamity. The position we're in isn't one any of us want - no one would wish to start working now to avert the worst climate change, but we are where we are. So it's unfortunate that we've only a few years to do fuck loads of work in but better to be indebted now and work to mitigate climate change than say sod it and leave a worse situation to young people down the line. I think ib must be onto something otherwise they wouldn't have garnered the coterie of reactionary scum who oppose them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Lots of utter bollocks being posted here by people who really should know better. Contempt of court laws are an enforcement device to prevent those convicted of offences from ignoring court rulings. The usual Urban75 hypocrisy is on show here in spades. When climate twats get on the wrong side of CoC, such laws are the embodiment of state power abuse, but when Tommy Robinson gets jailed for the same, they're the best thing since sliced bread and cause for celebration!

Has anyone said that about the jailing of the abominable Robinson?

 

[Spymaster]

Has anyone said that about the jailing of the abominable Robinson?

Don't you remember the threads???

 

[A380]

Judicary are independant of the State. When my mum was a court reproter she had one who had the Head of the DVLA summonded to explain why his court was being mucked about.

They are one of the traditional three arms of the state. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't you remember the threads???

I remember threads. I remember chuckling about his jailing. I don't remember raising a glass to British justice and legislation, the envy of the world

 

[MickiQ]

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read on the internet and as I'm sure you can imagine that's up against some stiff competition.

Should we really be a society where things only get done when people clamour for them? Should everything be done at the last minute? That's the sort of approach which leads to calamity. The position we're in isn't one any of us want - no one would wish to start working now to avert the worst climate change, but we are where we are. So it's unfortunate that we've only a few years to do fuck loads of work in but better to be indebted now and work to mitigate climate change than say sod it and leave a worse situation to young people down the line. I think ib must be onto something otherwise they wouldn't have garnered the coterie of reactionary scum who oppose them.

OK if things get done when people aren't demanding they get done, who gets to decide what is done? Donald Trump? Boris Johnson? The Iluminati? Jeff Bexos? You?
Should things only get done when people clamour for them then hell yes otherwise how would we know as for the last minute no but that is a different and unrelated question.