To wonder if a lot of the Just Stop Oil protesters are not very nice people on a personal level

[HazelSchmazel]

There are a few Just Stop Oil threads around and I've noticed that a couple of posters have stated that the protesters are not very nice people.

Which got me thinking .....

A few years ago, I was in a horrible relationship with a rather unpleasant guy - a selfish, alcoholic, abusive cheater, who treated me like dirt and ended up stealing a considerable amount of money from me. Despite being a daily meat eater, regularly flying, driving a gas guzzler, having children etc. he would regularly pontificate on saving the environment (and would castigate me on environmental grounds for having a cat - even though I'm a childless vegetarian, who never flies!). Needless to say, the whole experience made me very unhappy.

Fast forward to the present, and I gather that he is now a very active Just Stop Oil protester.

Now, I'm bracing myself to be shot down in flames, as I appreciate that of course, it's unreasonable to judge an entire movement based on one bad apple.

But could it be the case, that there is something about JSO that attracts these nasty characters? Just wondering ......

The Bristol statue protesters were allowed to cite their motivation for their actions in their criminal damage case, leading to them being found not guilty.

Whereas for JSO “Judge Christopher Hehir forced defendants not to mention climate change or their reasons for taking direct action. Defendants take an oath to tell the whole truth. But when they have, the judge has had them arrested and removed from court over and over again.”

The rushed through law surrounding slow walking was specifically aimed at JSO.

The idea that they aren't subject to a campaign of vilification or treated differently by the courts is laughably naive.

Nicely vague.

I didn’t take part in any Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion protests, but they are correct that most of us can’t carry on as we are. We need radical change.

Oh behave!!

You really don’t have a clue do you?

I think inciting someone to kill themselves for a cause is a crime under current legislation. You might end up sharing a cell with a JSO agitator.

🤣🤣🤣

Oh wow, so people really support a long jail sentence for just talking about blockading a road? This is absolutely crazy and gone way beyond sensible discussion. The Holly Willoughby is nowhere near the same, that was stalking and targeting an individual with a very clear intent to kill. What you're talking about is jailing people for talking about a peaceful protest.

So when asked for a comparable protest, you chose a statue being pushed into a river, done by people who were not on bail, had no previous convictions in this area and were not escalating in their criminality when they pushed a statue to the river. So the severity of the impact of the crime was in no way comparable, and the pattern of behaviour was in no way comparable, and the people committing these acts were in the no way comparable in terms of their record of criminality.

And that's your comparable example to demonstrate how JSO are not being treated fairly compared to other protestors?

You don't have a comparison. You can't make your case.

Oh I really do

Not quite, they have multiple previous arrests/convictions for disruptive protests, they have shown zero contrition and they have publicly stated they intend to continue to cause disruptions via their form of direct action protests that in the past has led to deaths. Just because they are fluffy middle class types they should be given a free pass and another slapped wrist?

They weren't jailed for ' just talking', they were jailed for the intent to commit a criminal act which was then carried out.

They weren't just 'blockading a road' they were planning to stop the entire road infrastructure in the whole SE. They were prevented only due to a police tip off.

It was not a harmless protest. It caused harm. And no, I don't count things that cause harm, or that can foreseeable cause harm, peaceful.

You have to completely distort what actually happened to make your case.

Have you even read the judgement? Or are you getting your 'facts' from activists on SM?

'Just blocking a road'. 'Just talking about blocking a road'. You can keep trying to simplify it all you like. They are repeat offenders. Offending whilst on bail. Their actions could've cost lives, their actions did have massive ramifications. The ripple effect.

Also judges are bound by sentencing guidelines, they don't just get to decide willy nilly. I believe the maximum sentence for which they were convicted was 10 years so they got off lightly!

A child dies of malnutrition every 11 seconds. The impact of the climate on food production in the global south is a key cause of that (along with conflict). There are no food banks in Mali. If your crops fail due to floods, drought, or wildfires, you don’t eat.

Lives ade ending miserably every day. And for now the impact is mainly felt in Africa, but it’s spreading. This is why phasing out fossil fuels is number one priority.

Lecturing this to me and stopping me from getting to my work is going to do naff all to
stop this.

A child probably clawed lithium, cobolt, indium and terbium out of the ground somewhere in the DRC. Are you going to stop using your mobile phone to post replies on here??

I demonstrated how the cases of JSO protesters were treated differently under law. By refusing to allow JSO to include their motivation in defense. That's a significant difference in treatment.

Why do you keep ignoring the Nov 2023 sentencing of JSO activists where Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance. Neither on bail or previously convicted.

How long do you think these lot got?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.

Let me get this straight. You feel that British people being disrupted and dying on a handful of occasions is not ok.

But brown people being disrupted and dying in far greater numbers can just be ignored.

I don’t particularly like JSO’s tactics but I absolutely cannot tolerate children suffering wherever in the world they live. If phasing out the burning of fossil fuels for energy saves lives, I’m all for it.

Classic whataboutery that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Did you just use whataboutery there?!

One doesn’t justify the other. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Not joining JSO, defending their actions and dedicating your life to activism mean you don’t care about anything else. Nice use of ‘brown people though’. I see what you’re trying to do. Try harder.

Not really, just highlighting the hypocrisy in playing the emotional blackmail card when you own lifestyle choices outside if your immediate cause have a detrimental effect on others.

This judgment - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/R-v-Trowland-judgment-310723.pdf

Lays it all out quite clearly why they received the sentence they did. It also says they had previously convictions and were on bail. Have you even read it?

Disagreeing with JSO and their ludicrous tactics means that you ignore and don't care about the plight of 'brown people'.

Is that the level we're at? With that level of argument it's no wonder you don't get more people on board.

You just used it yourself.

Anyone who behaves the way they do cannot be a nice person.

I'm not ignoring them. This thread is about the recent convictions. I don't know about the others and I would have to look into them to comment, which I am not going to to do as this thread is not about them. Given the woeful misrepresentation of the JSO action on this thread though, I suspect there are reasonable factors behind the sentencing decision, just as there were for the recently convicted.

I'm sorry but your comparison was terrible. It really was. For all the reasons I outlined.

The Judge stopped the defendants from giving long rambling speeches that were holding up the trial.

I don't know the details of this part of the trial but as a lay person I would think that to make the type of defence you are arguing for there has to be a direct link between your action and the outcome you are stating to achieve.
e
Knocking down a statue that represents a slave trader actually does stop people from being offended by a celebration of a slave trader.

Bringing the whole of the SE road system to a standstill does nothing whatsoever to stop or slow down climate change. If anything it makes it worse if people have to repeat journeys, which many people must have had to.

I repeat: You can't just do anything to anyone and say ' Climate change means I can do it.' That's just not a tenable position and that court rightly rejected it.

Ok I’ll bite.

People, including children are starving and dying every day because of the impact of burning fossil fuels. That’s not emotional blackmail, it’s relevant facts.

And a practical response to that is write to or book an appointment to see your new MP. To tell them that they must support the rapid phasing out of burning fossil fuels.

We are rapidly heading towards global food shortages, and hugely disruptive weather patterns are already upon us. The electorate en masse can influence policy and government priorities, but a lot of us have to do it to make enough of an impact.