Cressida Gething missing bro's wedding

[PeachSnake]

AIBU to not give a shit and wish she had a much longer sentence?
Mum of jailed Just Stop Oil eco-yob moans 'she'll miss her brother's wedding' | UK | News | Express.co.uk

But surely Cressida would have boycotted the wedding in principle anyway due to its carbon footprint?

Absolutely. I can't understand why her mother even thought for a moment that Cressida would go to the wedding in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

As if she would participate in all of these protests then fly overseas unnecessarily.

It's interesting that of all the group jailed, it's the young female getting most flack

But the same people are condemning her for protesting, yet think it's OK to suggest throwing paint at someone's wedding. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. It's nonsensical.

I'm not saying these types of protests are right, but no one is listening to what is a climate emergency. We are taking all those things for granted- the ability to travel, medical treatment for diseases, law and order all those things that people would be travelling to. Our children won't have the same quality of life which we do - yet no one is listening.
People talk about less disruptive protests, negotiating etc. But that has been done and people are not interested.

Because her family is the one going to the media, that's why. @Allfur . None of the others are.

People talk about less disruptive protests, negotiating etc. But that has been done and people are not interested.

Then if no one is interested, take the hint. If they aren't interested now, killing people, causing car collisions, people to miss cancer treatment and special needs children missing out on medication sure as fuck won't make them interested, either!

Just a thought. Do you think that Cressida’s mother mentioned the wedding to illustrate that Cressida has also affected by her protests? So she meant to sound like she was empathising with all those missed appointments, rather than trying to garner sympathy.

But it has spectacularly backfired.

That’s because if the ill-conceived statement by her mother.

Yes I absolutely think that, I'm a strong supporter of the Gaza marches and go on them myself. People are 'upping the ante' worldwide and I think they are right to do so. I'm really concerned about the clamp down on peaceful protest. I guess if you think otherwise you'd better hope you don't find yourself on the other side of it one day. Myself, I'm too much of a coward to risk arrest, but I have the utmost admiration for those that do. I'm pretty grateful the suffragettes 'upped the ante' and made a nuisance of themselves as well, and civil rights protesters. I imagine future generations will look on counter change protesters with a very different attitude.

Ok, so you're happy for the M25 to be closed by Gaza protesters and climate change protesters.

Tommy Robinson and co were protesting in London yesterday. They also have regular protests that no one pays attention to.

So the M25 is now fair game for them too.

Maybe Reform could block the M25 to bring 'awareness' of the immigrant situation. After all, nothing else they've done has made Labour or tories wake up and change policies and stop all immigration and all refugees. /s

*NB: I am left wing and not anti-immigrant or anti-refugee, just saying if you think JSO have a valid reason to do what they do, so do any and every crackpot group, including neo-nazis/nationalists and anti-refugee groups. As you do for one, so you do for all.

I listened to her mother's statement yesterday, wow, a totally different one from the one I would have given in her shoes.

Cressida's mum didn't 'go to the press' though. She read out a statement, the intended audience being fellow JSO supporters, posted on JSO SM, which was picked up by the press.

And I think a PP just now was right, and I made the same point at the start of this thread: I think she was trying to illustrate that Cressida will also be missing out on something. She definitely doesn't sound as if she's moaning or complaining, that is 100% media spin.

And I keep seeing references to C's brother's wedding being a destination event abroad. I've yet to find any verifiable mention of this.

Unfortunately yes, that's what living in a free democratic society with the right to free speech and peaceful protest means. It doesn't mean 'the right to protest only for causes that noblegiraffe off mumsnet agrees with and only in a way which doesn't inconvenience mumsnet users in general'

It appears that the law disagrees with you on what constitutes peaceful protest then, otherwise these protestors would not be going to prison?

Do the rest have mothers making crass remarks too? Havent seen that yet.

Many posters seem to delight in imagining these protesters being disappointed or shocked at being given long custodial sentences, suggesting they were just doing it for 'social media likes' or thought they'd be 'let off'. The legal process and the justice system is not some surprising, unforeseen consequence in acts of civil disobedience, it's part and parcel of the process of disruption and bringing a cause to public attention.

Here's an extract from a statement from Roger Hallam: "This trial was an experiment with the truth, as Gandhi called it. We were not trying to win, we were trying to tell the truth as if the truth was real... It was integrity, not expediency. So obviously, we spoke that truth. Obviously, we got interrupted. Obviously, we continue to speak even when the judges shouted at us to stop, had us dragged from the dock, banged up in jail."
No surprises for anyone involved.

But it shows us that, while our model of growth economy and reliance on fossil fuels continues to perpetuate and facilitate climate breakdown which is already having disastrous consequences for the global South, we are happy to cheer on a judiciary which is locking up the canaries.

A poster on one JSO thread, @CautiousLurker I think, posted about how her (?) DH works in the roll-out and logistics of game-changing low-carbon tech and solutions (I hope I've got this right). This is what we all need to get behind and demand investment and research into ‐there are some brilliant minds working on extraordinary innovations‐ instead of sniggering at the perceived just deserts of others and taking down someone's mum.

No, I agree there should be laws around what is allowed and what constitutes peaceful, not sure why you would think otherwise. I also think the previous government's attempts to criminalise legitimate peaceful protests should make us all scared. Labour are planning to reverse those changes and I hope they do. I'm not sure this ruling was fair or even just, the appeal will be interesting. I find the vitriol directed towards these protesters from mumsnet quite depressing though.

But you said 'Unfortunately yes, that's what living in a free democratic society with the right to free speech and peaceful protest means.' when I suggested that if it was ok for climate change protesters and Gaza protesters to block the M25 then it meant that Tommy Robinson and other protestors should be allowed to as well.

So do you think that blocking the M25 is peaceful protest and should be allowed for all, or is it not peaceful protest and shouldn't be allowed for any?

A poster on one JSO thread, ** I think, posted about how her (?) DH works in the roll-out and logistics of game-changing low-carbon tech and solutions (I hope I've got this right). This is what we all need to get behind and demand investment and research into ‐there are some brilliant minds working on extraordinary innovations‐ instead of sniggering at the perceived just deserts of others and taking down someone's mum.

So these protests are a sideshow and a distraction from the real work on tackling climate change?

I think blocking roads is a peaceful protest and has been for many hundreds of years. Recent legislation may have changed whether that is legally the case, I'm not sure. Sadly I don't set the law but that is my personal opinion. I also think the protesters would have been aware of the law and were prepared to break it anyway, though they were expecting a more lenient sentence (as was everybody I think). So it's a difficult balance, there must be some laws around protest to protect safety, but it has often been the case, as seen with suffragettes, civil right protesters, anti apartheid protesters, and in my opinion climate protesters and pro Palestinian protesters, that government's have used the law (and in this case changed a long standing law) unfairly and unjustly to prevent protests against their interests. I believe this is what is happening here, I will be interested to see what the appeal brings, and as I said before I think history will judge it very differently from today's mumsnetters. However, in all the situations I mention here I have absolute respect, admiration and gratitude for those who have been willing to knowingly risk arrest for those causes. Protests are complicated. I assume you would like to keep the vote for women and have no wish for apartheid to return to South Africa, yet had you been around at the time you would no doubt be condemning the very protests which achieved those things, which were violent and unlawful.

Noble (I really admire your excellent work on bringing injustices in education to people's attention here on MN, btw!), I don't think they're a sideshow at all. Nor a distraction.

De-carbonisation is a multifaceted problem which is being tackled on many fronts. As I'm sure you know, climate activists have been plugging away for close to half a century trying to raise awareness of the dangers of unchecked carbon emissions. For decades, it was considered a niche area of scientific research with scant funding and portrayed by the fossil fuel lobby as irrelevant and crankish (similar to the efforts of tobacco companies to discredit medical research linking smoking to cancer and respiratory poor health).

The public may have been aware of the growing threat posed by 'global warming' but not necessarily believed there was much point in trying to do anything about it, so happy to defer to 'scientists working on it behind the scenes'.

In the spring of 2019, XR and Fridays for Future with Greta Thunberg jointly created a new space in the public and media awareness for climate activism through civil disobedience, a key part of which relied on disruption to the judiciary. The Overton Window was shifted, climate emergency was declared by the UK government and across local authorities up and down the country who crafted carbon policies to reflect this, corporations became visibly pro-active about their carbon policies (even if, as some employees on MN emphatically state, this pre-dates any climate activist pressure), global insurance companies became transparent about policies pertaining to sea-level rise and anticipated logistical issues arising from resource-scarcity as a result of a changing climate.

These are just some of the changes which I believe were brought about by the increased visibility of climate activism through civil disobedience. Of course, the climate scientists were always working away behind the scenes and, crucially, trying to raise the alarm, but just didn't have a big enough platform. Now, with collective attention firmly fixed on the climate emergency and the wide acknowledgement that a transition to renewables is necessary if multi-billion dollar losses are to be avoided, not to mention human life and biodiversity, there is ample funding for new science and technology, as big financial gains are ripe for (not so) early adaptors.

To use an old Army expression, with apologies for any offence caused, My heart pumps purple {expletive deleted} piss for them both.

Sorry buy not sorry, she shouldn't have done it.

They distract from the message because people are so pissed off with JSO they focus on how pissed off they are, not on the message.

For example I have never heard of oil license renewals so the stupid stunt failed to highlight that because everyone was focused on the dangerous, harmful disruption JSO caused. Not the JSOs alleged message.

People don’t need to go home and burn more fuel. People need to change their behaviour to consume less fuel. But no-one co-operates with someone who’s against them. Disrupting the public going about their day to day business, causes emotional harm, practical harm, material and financial harm and both causes and risks causing real physical harm including risk of death to the public, means JSO are positioning themselves as against the public. I repeat, no one cooperates with those who are against them. People are far less likely to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint when they associate that with their extremely negative feelings about self styled climate warriors like JSO

Its also a fantastically stupid stunt that releases more carbon into the atmosphere, not just from idling cars but from the many people who will have had to repeat their failed journey another day.

Nice try. It’s obviously because of the video about the wedding her Mum posted. If the mum of a man had done that, he’d be getting the flack.