Just Stop Oil protesters jailed.

[chartpolski 23,755]

7 hours ago, WILF said:

What was he planning mate ?

As far as I can see, the joining of his banned group in the UK with a banned group in Canada.with him as the leader.

Of course he’s a complete wrong’un and should be in prison.

The point I’m trying to make is the complexities of freedom of speech and freedom to protest, there has to be limits, Choudry can’t have rallies and meetings exhorting people to terrorism, and the JSO can’t  be planning ever more disruptive and dangerous stunts.

Yes, I agree politicians will try to use laws to their advantage, I’m a great believer in the saying “power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts”, but in the case of these particular JSO jail sentences, the police and the judiciary have bent over backwards to be easy on them, how many times has a judge got to tell them “please stop breaking the law, or you will go to prison” Well , it’s a rhetorical question because one of them was told ELEVEN times, but just kept breaking the law.

Im sure it came as a great shock to them when a judge finally lost patience and said the words “take them down” , but it shouldn’t have….  They had enough warnings.

Cheers.

[WILF 47,009]

1 hour ago, chartpolski said:

As far as I can see, the joining of his banned group in the UK with a banned group in Canada.with him as the leader.

If he just talking about one political group linking with another political group then I don’t care what the politics is, there is no harm there…..I may loath it, but it’s the price we pay for our own right to do such things.

1 hour ago, chartpolski said:

Of course he’s a complete wrong’un and should be in prison.

What for ?…..genuine question mate because I don’t know anything about his case.

I know he is one of these fanatical Muslims but beyond that nothing, that said he is only one of tens of thousands invited into our lands by the government.

Far as I can see, if the government don’t like him, put him on a plane and send him back from where he came……not need to impact our freedoms about him.

1 hour ago, chartpolski said:

The point I’m trying to make is the complexities of freedom of speech and freedom to protest, there has to be limits, Choudry can’t have rallies and meetings exhorting people to terrorism, and the JSO can’t  be planning ever more disruptive and dangerous stunts.

Why not ?……he can talk about anything he likes, and we already have pretty tough  laws when murder moves from talk to planning to deed…..so why do we need more ? 
 

Its like that terrible piece of law about “hate speech”, a law so vague and all encompassing that it can be used for anything the government want…..

We have perfectly good laws about if you physically hurt people or plan to……everything else is just pretend, as in I can say you have caused me distress and harm with this conversation and now you are classed the same as if you punched me in the face !

Absolute nonsense as we both know, but real none the less. 
 

We have “assault & GBH” law, we have laws if you kill someone, we have slander……so why do we need a fully flexible, make it anything you want law about words ?

Same with this piece of legislation mate.

Legislate the words, legislate the action or even talking about the action……if that’s not terrible law then I don’t know what is.

1 hour ago, chartpolski said:

Yes, I agree politicians will try to use laws to their advantage, I’m a great believer in the saying “power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts”, but in the case of these particular JSO jail sentences, the police and the judiciary have bent over backwards to be easy on them, how many times has a judge got to tell them “please stop breaking the law, or you will go to prison” Well , it’s a rhetorical question because one of them was told ELEVEN times, but just kept breaking the law.

If their “nuisance” is breaking the law then everyone’s “nuisance” is breaking the law…….but apparently everyone’s “nuisance” don’t break the law, only certain peoples and in that case it should apply to nobody. 
 

You can shut down London and call for the murder of Jews and that’s fine, but you can’t stand on a road with a placard and ask to save the planet……nah mate, I’m sorry, that don’t work for me.

1 hour ago, chartpolski said:

Im sure it came as a great shock to them when a judge finally lost patience and said the words “take them down” , but it shouldn’t have….  They had enough warnings.

Cheers.

It should have come as a great shock to every British bloke is the point. 
 

Good conversation mate, I’m enjoying it.

ATB 

[chartpolski 23,755]

2 minutes ago, WILF said:

If he just talking about one political group linking with another political group then I don’t care what the politics is, there is no harm there…..I may loath it, but it’s the price we pay for our own right to do such things.

What for ?…..genuine question mate because I don’t know anything about his case.

I know he is one of these fanatical Muslims but beyond that nothing, that said he is only one of tens of thousands invited into our lands by the government.

Far as I can see, if the government don’t like him, put him on a plane and send him back from where he came……not need to impact our freedoms about him.

Why not ?……he can talk about anything he likes, and we already have pretty tough  laws when murder moves from talk to planning to deed…..so why do we need more ? 
 

Its like that terrible piece of law about “hate speech”, a law so vague and all encompassing that it can be used for anything the government want…..

We have perfectly good laws about if you physically hurt people or plan to……everything else is just pretend, as in I can say you have caused me distress and harm with this conversation and now you are classed the same as if you punched me in the face !

Absolute nonsense as we both know, but real none the less. 
 

We have “assault & GBH” law, we have laws if you kill someone, we have slander……so why do we need a fully flexible, make it anything you want law about words ?

Same with this piece of legislation mate.

Legislate the words, legislate the action or even talking about the action……if that’s not terrible law then I don’t know what is.

If their “nuisance” is breaking the law then everyone’s “nuisance” is breaking the law…….but apparently everyone’s “nuisance” don’t break the law, only certain peoples and in that case it should apply to nobody. 
 

You can shut down London and call for the murder of Jews and that’s fine, but you can’t stand on a road with a placard and ask to save the planet……nah mate, I’m sorry, that don’t work for me.

It should have come as a great shock to every British bloke is the point. 
 

Good conversation mate, I’m enjoying it.

ATB 

Wilf, we both know each other’s stance on this ; you support JSO’s actions, I don’t. 
It’s pointless going round in circles, I can respect your stance without agreeing with it.

A little analogy; I course hares, it’s against the law , a law I disagree with, but nonetheless a law.

If I keep getting arrested for it and the judge keeps telling me to stop or I’ll go to jail, but I keep on doing it, I won’t be in the least surprised when eventually I’m sent down, and I won’t complain how unfair it is.

Cheers.

 

[WILF 47,009]

Just now, chartpolski said:

Wilf, we both know each other’s stance on this ; you support JSO’s actions, I don’t. 
It’s pointless going round in circles, I can respect your stance without agreeing with it.

A little analogy; I course hares, it’s against the law , a law I disagree with, but nonetheless a law.

If I keep getting arrested for it and the judge keeps telling me to stop or I’ll go to jail, but I keep on doing it, I won’t be in the least surprised when eventually I’m sent down, and I won’t complain how unfair it is.

Cheers.

 

I support a white British blokes right to protest in his own land about anything he wants…..I think there’s a subtle difference but maybe there isn’t.

I actually agree that JSO cause is a bit narrow, and they probably wouldn’t be saying anything about wider issues that surround climate change…..but it’s their thing and their country so as far as I’m concerned they can say what they like and protest where and when they want.

Because mate, it means we can too. 
cheers mate. 

[chartpolski 23,755]

6 minutes ago, WILF said:

I support a white British blokes right to protest in his own land about anything he wants…..I think there’s a subtle difference but maybe there isn’t.

I actually agree that JSO cause is a bit narrow, and they probably wouldn’t be saying anything about wider issues that surround climate change…..but it’s their thing and their country so as far as I’m concerned they can say what they like and protest where and when they want.

Because mate, it means we can too. 
cheers mate. 

Another analogy, Wilf;

The snidey little kid at school who whispers to the school bully, “ hey that kid over there has been slagging you off “ and the bully beats the shit out of the totally innocent kid.

The snide is Anjem Choudry and the bully is the terrorist that blows up a music concert full of kids !

“ Cause and effect”…. The snide was using free speech causing the bully to effect an action.

Its a minefield, a moras, but remember the old saying “ yes you can have free speech, but you can’t run into a full theatre shouting FIRE ! “
 

Anyhow, it’s nice to have a discussion without it turning nasty !

Cheers.

[joe ox 2,600]

To those who think its a harsh sentence.

What would be an acceptable punishment for them? a fine, suspended sentence, shorter sentence, community service.

My opinion is a suspended sentence as a warning then doing sentence if they continue. Length of sentence that I would need to know all the facts before nailing my colours to the flag.

  

[WILF 47,009]

Just now, chartpolski said:

Another analogy, Wilf;

The snidey little kid at school who whispers to the school bully, “ hey that kid over there has been slagging you off “ and the bully beats the shit out of the totally innocent kid.

The snide is Anjem Choudry and the bully is the terrorist that blows up a music concert full of kids !

“ Cause and effect”…. The snide was using free speech causing the bully to effect an action.

Its a minefield, a moras, but remember the old saying “ yes you can have free speech, but you can’t run into a full theatre shouting FIRE ! “
 

Anyhow, it’s nice to have a discussion without it turning nasty !

Cheers.

Again mate, I have always believed you lock up the person perpetrating the actual real crime, because anything else is too much power for a politicians.

Banning words and books and discussing thought should be a red line for everyone imho. 
 

 

[chartpolski 23,755]

2 minutes ago, joe ox said:

To those who think its a harsh sentence.

What would be an acceptable punishment for them? a fine, suspended sentence, shorter sentence, community service.

My opinion is a suspended sentence as a warning then doing sentence if they continue. Length of sentence that I would need to know all the facts before nailing my colours to the flag.

  

Joe, theses particular people have been arrested multiple times for the same offence, wether we agree with the offence or not
The woman who got four years and who’s mother is now saying how unfair it is that she will now miss her brothers wedding had been arrested four times before.

The man who got five years had been arrested ELEVEN times before ! 
They were treated leniently each time before, and were warned that if they carried on regardless, they would get a custodial sentence.

They obviously thought they wouldn’t and that’s why it’s came as such a shock to them.

Cheers.

[WILF 47,009]

1 minute ago, joe ox said:

To those who think its a harsh sentence.

What would be an acceptable punishment for them? a fine, suspended sentence, shorter sentence, community service.

My opinion is a suspended sentence as a warning then doing sentence if they continue. Length of sentence that I would need to know all the facts before nailing my colours to the flag.

  

To me, it’s either everyone planning anything gets locked up or nobody…..it just can’t work any other way in reality because then it just becomes a tool for a government who we all know betrays us and hates us. 
 

If you actually physically hurt someone in the course of you protest, then that is assault perpetrated by one or a group of individuals on one or more other group of individuals…..we already have laws for that, it’s called assault. 
 

We can’t pretend you hurt someone, we can’t try and establish some tenuous link to someone being harmed…..you actually have to do it, and that’s assault. 
 

Anything that isn’t strict and clear gives people we can’t trust too much power.

jmho

[chartpolski 23,755]

6 minutes ago, WILF said:

To me, it’s either everyone planning anything gets locked up or nobody…..it just can’t work any other way in reality because then it just becomes a tool for a government who we all know betrays us and hates us. 
 

 

 

Wilf, with due respect , that is absolutely ridiculous!

A man sitting in his kitchen , making a placard saying, say, “Repeal the hunting ban “ and planning to stand outside his MP’s office is one thing.

A potential terrorist sitting in his kitchen with bomb making plans and components is another.

They are both in the planning stage , but you are saying they both deserve the same punishment or both deserve no punishment .

The security services have prevented many atrocities by acting against the planners, not by waiting until the carnage has happened.

Cheers.

[joe ox 2,600]

@WILF  the courts carnt keep giving them warnings without taking action can they? regardless of the politics of the situation.

 

[chartpolski 23,755]

Breaking news ; nine JSO people arrested breaking into Heathrow Airport and trying to get onto the runways to stop flights.

Cheers.

[WILF 47,009]

31 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

Wilf, with due respect , that is absolutely ridiculous!

A man sitting in his kitchen , making a placard saying, say, “Repeal the hunting ban “ and planning to stand outside his MP’s office is one thing.

 

31 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

A potential terrorist sitting in his kitchen with bomb making plans and components is another.

Here’s the point, not anymore it’s not.

31 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

They are both in the planning stage , but you are saying they both deserve the same punishment or both deserve no punishment .

No, you are saying they deserve the same punishment…..

31 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

The security services have prevented many atrocities by acting against the planners, not by waiting until the carnage has happened.

Cheers.

And now they can waste their time acting against Tarquin who wants to lay in a road……which is probably much easier than acting against Abdul walking to the kiddies concert with 80kg of cemtex taped to his body. 

[WILF 47,009]

21 minutes ago, joe ox said:

@WILF  the courts carnt keep giving them warnings without taking action can they? regardless of the politics of the situation.

 

The courts work for the law, the law is made by the government. 
I don’t think the government should lock you up if you want to stand in the road with a placard that says “Please don’t build 300 houses all over this historic woodland” no matter how many time they warn you not to do it.

 

[chartpolski 23,755]

1 minute ago, WILF said:

 

Here’s the point, not anymore it’s not.

No, you are saying they deserve the same punishment…..

And now they can waste their time acting against Tarquin who wants to lay in a road……which is probably much easier than acting against Abdul walking to the kiddies concert with 80kg of cemtex taped to his body. 

Wilf , I’ve NEVER said they deserved the same punishment!

You said, and I quote; “To me anyone planning anything gets locked up or no one “ !

You couldn’t have said it clearer !

Cheers.