To think the judge was right to throw the book at Just Stop Oil?

[StripedPiggy]

Five Just Stop Oil activists, including leader & XR founder Roger Hallam have been sentenced to up to 5 years in jail for blocking the M25 & other main roads.
Their intention was to cause gridlock on roads in the South East. The disruption they caused resulted in people missing medical appointments, flights & business meetings.

Well done to that judge. The criminal justice system is right to pass serious sentences on these fanatics which will act as a strong deterrent to others who might try to cause mass disruption, and put people’s lives in danger, to further a political agenda, whatever it might be.

What you are suggesting is that as long as people feel it is important enough they can force the change they want. This is just low level terrorism in the end

So what about - say - trade unionists? Are they low level terrorists too? At the end of the day the ability to protest - including against the actions and decisions of an elected government- is an important and healthy part of representative democracy.

@IllMetByMoonlight that's an excellent point, but the thing campaigners don't seem to realise is that those in positions to 'do something about it' also have other considerations. It's absolutely right that campaigners of course wouldn't have all the answers, but they also don't understand all the barriers either. It's not as simple as, 'nobody's doing anything because they aren't listening, so if I shout louder, all the difficulties will just vanish'.
Unfortunately, Governments do have to consider things like the economic consequences of just stopping oil.

You see the problems, yes. That's great. Absolutely needs to be brought to attention. But it isn't just somebody else's job to fix this problem. It's somebody else's job to fix this problem whilst minimising the amount of other problems that will be created.
One of the problems with climate change is still the number of people who don't think it's a problem. Some of those people are of economic importance. Much as we might hate this fact, we can't pretend the economic situation today doesn't matter and can just be ignored in the teeth of the far more serious issue of global climate change.
Here and now, today, it DOES matter. Yes, people are short-sighted, but if we are all really honest about it, most of us will prioritise our immediate personal situations over what will happen in an uncertain number of years when push comes to shove. Policy makers have to look at the immediate impact of changes made and what they can realistically impose on a beleaguered population.

Of course, it seems like a no-brainer to me that we prioritise the planet we live on. But if any government really and truly did what, at this stage, it would really take to make a difference, even if they could do it just like that, as protest groups seem to imagine, there would be economic collapse. And the biggest sufferers would be those
who are struggling to put food on the table today, in the here and now. Governments can't just wave that away as an irrelevancy.

Tandora, excellent point re trade unionists. Union members exercising their constitutional and democratic right to protest frequently cause disruption on a national scale.

There is specific provision for union action.

Part of it is proper balloting and advance notice of strike action.

Another part of it is immunity to legal claims if the rules are complied with.

It’s how we balance the interests of labour ‘combination’ with the rights of everyone else.

Trades union rules and interests have nothing to do with the criminal interruption of the road network.

Obelix, yes, of course you are right; it's never going to be an easy shout for any government. But it is really important to challenge the damaging narrative which lays responsibility at the feet of climate activists and expects them to be somehow responsible for providing solutions when this is clearly a matter of governance.

The 'What are those crusties actually doing about it!?"-fixation also encourages hypocrisy-hunting and demands for ideological purity in an attempt to shut down legitimate concerns: "Meh, I bet they were dropped off at the protest in mum and dad's 4x4..." / "I bet they all use mobile phones ‐that's not very eco-friendly, is it?!" etc. To most, this is obviously irrelevant and easy to see through as disingenuous, but not all.

Final, local authorities up and down the country were queueing up to declare 'climate emergency' in the wake of the 2019 climate actions. Promises and climate pledges were made by elected bodies, to act in the best interest of its citizens. There was serious talk of citizens' assemblies, a model presented by XR.
There IS a mandate for strong leadership on climate, and this could be harnessed to mobilise significant change of policy. Granted, it's not the same as the 'action by consent' as undertaken by the unions, but to suggest there is no mandate is disingenuous.

This happened on 21 Oct 2022:

"The Just Stop Oil protesters on the Dartford Bridge earlier this week now have “blood on their hands,” a man has said who was badly injured trying to help two women needing assistance on the M20. The protest caused havoc in London, as enormous congestion and high levels of traffic began to pile up.
The two women the man was trying to help were involved in a crash – but due to the traffic, the ambulance was delayed in arriving, leading to their deaths.
One woman was stranded on the M20, which led to another woman stopping her car to help her – both were then tragically involved in an accident while waiting on the hard should four hours after the protest had started.
Mark Heap, the man trying to help the stranded women, was a passing van driver who has sustained broken bones in his back and a fractured leg in his attempt.
Speaking in an interview from hospital, the 54-year-old said: “[The protestors] may not have intended to hurt anyone but they've got blood on their hands now.
“Without the protest the emergency services might have been able to get there in time to save the women.”
A former Detective Chief Inspector, Mick Neville, went further in his interview with The Sun, stating: “Had their irresponsible demo not taken place, the women and van driver would probably not have been there.”

So, two innocent women dead and a man seriously injured, because of a Just Stop Oil protest.

I was reading about their behaviour in court and it makes me think all the more that they deserve the prison sentences. Lengthy self representation speeches from Hallam who had to be repeatedly stopped due to talking about stuff he wasn’t allowed to, they kept having to send the jury out. Some of the others standing up and reciting lists of climate emergency facts, trying to sway the jury. Sounds like general chaos at times in court with defendants who felt they could take charge of the show and behave how they wanted.

@IllMetByMoonlight yes you are right about the reductive attitudes in re: cars and mobile phones usage, but part of that attitude is as a result of the belligerence the type of activism can cause. It seems daft, I know, to be worried about not getting into work when faced with the future of we don't act, but as I said people do need to put food on the table today. The typical argument when protesters are challenged about phone usage and car usage is 'we use the means available to us out of necessity' which is valid. But it is ALSO valid to consider the roads and cars as a current necessity for many people to survive economically. Therefore, it does seem a bit counter-productive to recognise the necessity of car travel whilst attempting to disrupt it. And whilst it's perfectly logical to consider the loss of one life as a small price to pay when trying to save multiple future lives, it's a lot easier to say that when it isn't your loved one in the ambulance.
It's not easy. I can see both sides (which will of course result in me pleasing neither). As a side note, I have never owned a car, but it does make my life harder. I do, however, think that finding different technology to keep the lifestyle we have isn't the long term answer. I think we all know that and that's why people go into denial. We can't keep living as we are. But, as even the activists themselves have pointed out, right now, we use what's available to us, and it's understandably seen in a negative light when it's perceived that someone has driven on a road to a protest to stop someone else driving on a road.

Protest is fine. Disruption to people’s lives is not. Their sentences are harsh, but they will hopefully be a warning to others.

Surely the disproportionate sentence is to send a very clear message as a deterrent to others who are contemplating these protests?

Those who argue that they are minor inconveniences are simply ignorant or stupid. They cost the tax payer, individuals and businesses a fortune. You don’t get to behave like an entitled twat and not be penalised.

I totally disagree. I support people's right to protest, but in a legal way and not causing the level of disruption that this bunch did. I agree with the cause too but this is no way to go about demonstrating. The sentences were commensurate with the disruption and damage they caused.

Several things need to happen at this point.

We all need to understand what needs to happen in the short term to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Committee have just published some recommendations.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-2024-report-to-parliament

If you agree with some of the recommendations, act if you’re in a position to. If you can’t act or don’t agree with some or all of the suggested approaches, write to your MP and tell them what you want to see.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com

The new government work for us, the public, so they need to deliver on our collective needs. If the electorate is largely behind practical, realistic climate action and the new government is responsive, the need for disruptive climate protest will pass. We will transition into a more positive and productive phase.

And if you are concerned that our rights to peacefully protest on any issue that we care about has been eroded, here’s a petition to sign:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/scrap-new-anti-protest-lawsLG

No one has said protesting is illegal, that's not why these people are in trouble.

It's not a "damaging narrative" it's the real situation. It's not about expecting protestors to have the answers. This idea it's just stupid people "not listening" is frankly idiotic. It doesn't matter where the answers come from, no one can do anything if they aren't there.

This is the problem with idealists on the left - they are convinces if only people do certain things, their goals would be achievable, and the little people negatively impacted are worth the sacrifice. And usually the things they want done are foolish nonsense that won't work, or will have other horrific results.

Getting rid of oil means ramping down the economy, and also consumption generally, really significantly. And agriculture. I don't get the sense you have any clue how huge that would be, or what the outcomes would be.

So when, under the scheme you are proposing, next winter, you have the economy crash, people can't buy much in the grocery store, fill their cars, and heat their homes, how is that going to work? What's going to happen to the government who puts that through? What's going to happen when banks can't pay interest on investments?

We've had a very minor shadow of what that might look like with COVID shutting down the the economy. It would be far far worse than that.

You realize that is also a direct choice to kill people?

The other factor is that this is a global problem. The UK can take these measure and it will make no fucking difference if the US, Cina, and India don't do the same. How is that going to happen?

You are essentially screaming like a child that people should take action when the effects will be terrible, and then accusing people of not caring and being stupid. It's probably about the best way to get them to ignore you. It's such an own-goal, but I guess no surprise from people with so little;e actual political nous.

That's not really possible when the majority of your target audience revel in their willful ignorance or being deliberately antagonistic.

Study after study after study has shown that one of the most impactful changes an individual can make is to switch their diet. Something like 30% of the emissions reductions needed to reach reach the Paris Agreement targete could be achieved simply by the majority switching to a plant-based diet and if they went fully vegetarian it would achieve a 63% reduction.

But suggest that to the great British public and you'll get your arse handed to you with people gleefully telling you they're going to eat double the meat to make up for everyone who does switch or putting forward easily disproved misinformation, like avocados being environmentally worse than beef, as a reason not to change.

No, most people here would rather someone in a developing nation faced starvation than have to go more than a day without a some meat in their diet.

It'll be interesting to see how the entitled masses fair when global food systems are properly impacted and the price of even the basics become unaffordable to some (maybe many). No doubt we'll see thread after thread on here whinging about the injustice of it and crying that someone else should have acted sooner.

Please don’t listen to the hysteria of posts like @TempestTost

There’s multidisciplinary expertise being applied to make the reduction in reliance on oil and gas as smooth as possible, both in the UK and globally.

Rather than panicking, we need to be informed.

Getting rid of oil means ramping down the economy, and also consumption generally, really significantly.

No it doesn't. The entire point of net zero is to transition away from using fossil fuels as an energy source in a manner that minimises the social and economic impacts (ultimately the aim is to create a better world). Oil will still be used in other products and processes, its the combustion side of things that needs to be stopped.

The issue has become more and more acute because rather than take incremental action 30+ years ago, when governments first committed to reducing their GHG emissions, they've sat back (at the behest of the O&G sector imo) and are now at the point where incremental change is becoming more and more difficult to implement in the timeframe we have to work with.

The most frustrating thing is we've already seen how achievable this could have been if they'd acted promptly.

Remember when the Ozone was being depleted? Governments, scientists, and industry worked together to research, develop, and implement alternatives to Ozone depleting substances, ensuring the transition was smooth and effective, and the Ozone began repairing itself.

Yet, despite knowing the impact burning fossil fuel has on the planet (and human health for that matter) and having viable alternatives for decades, we're still clinging on to the same inefficient and polluting form of energy generation that we've used for the past 150 years or so as if it were the only choice.

It's the equivalent of refusing to use a smart phone to send a message because the there's still horses kicking about.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that their tactics leave a lot to be desired but the fact violent rapists and paedophiles get more lenient sentences is ridiculous.

Why have there not been these protests outside schools. Schools that change their school uniform as often as i change my knickers. Its wasteful to keep changing the uniforms like this. But nope they would rather have a go at working class women for not being able to afford to shop at People Tree!

Ditto housing associations Wont put showers in. Its still baths. No protests though Funny that. Its almost as if they are going for the easier targets

I'm genuinely shocked by the number of people on this thread who agree with these insanely excessive sentences.
I am no fan of Just Stop Oil, at all (though I am very much an environmentalist, who thinks climate change is likely to kill us all) but four and five years for non-violent protests utterly disgraceful. Our prisons are overcrowding and violent criminals including abusers of women walk free without conviction.
Also, however inconvenient Just Stop Oil and XR protests are, it's minuscule compared with the major disruption climate change is already having on people in the global south, and will eventually have on us.
An alarming number of climate change minimisers on Mumsnet. Worrying.

Net Zero is green washing.

We could transition to non-fossil fuels, sure, but we wouldn't be able to continue the current rate of manufacturing and industrialization. Renewables do not offer anything like the cheap easy energy of carbon. And battery power, which people envisage as a storage solution has significant environmental problems of it's own. Maybe those will be solved some day, but that's like saying maybe someday we can figure out a way to negate carbon emissions. It's not a plan, it's a vague faith claim.

I am not saying we shouldn't do that - consumerism is an existential problem, it's really what happens when greed becomes the primary value in a society and of course it's both physically and socially and devastating.

But for a government ,or governments really, to undertake that is barely possible, and no one has really figured out how to square the circle.

The Just Stop Oil people, and groups like them, are not only not offering anything, and making it clear they have no respect for other citizens, they are actually diminishing the legitimacy of their cause (along with the corporate and political greenwashers.)

I think the long sentences are essentially meant to discourage other people from protesting in the same way.

I currently live in a country which unwisely ignored protests of this type with regard to a different political issue.

It ballooned as a tactic, and then began to be adopted by other political causes. It was at that point much more difficult for the government to respond to any of the protestors, even when they started to do things like blocking train lines.

They cost the tax payer, individuals and businesses a fortune

And what does the destruction of the environment cost?

This with bells on,
This thread is truly shocking.