• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

So, what happened today?

scaramanga said:
It's not the jury's place to decide whether or not it should be punished. It's their place to decide whether or not the accused did the things they were accused of.

The sooner that bunch of terrorists are officially recognised as such, the better.
Click to expand...

Aggravated activist is the current definition, which is clear, boundaried and precise. Absurd to conflate XR with terrorism.

The jury’s decision was wrong and reprehensible of course, but it’s a minor and occasional example of the common law system not working. There are much more pressing ways in which it is unfit for purpose.I wish we had a European-style inquisitorial judiciary with specialists in complex areas like fraud and cyber.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Aggravated activist is the current definition, which is clear, boundaried and precise. Absurd to conflate XR with terrorism.
Click to expand...
Terrorism is the perfect category - we can stop them interfering with real people's lives by association rather than waiting for them to disrupt us.

ShipOfGoldblum said:
The jury’s decision was wrong and reprehensible of course, but it’s a minor and occasional example of the common law system not working. There are much more pressing ways in which it is unfit for purpose.I wish we had a European-style inquisitorial judiciary with specialists in complex areas like fraud and cyber.
Click to expand...
Those I know who work in that field have told me it's a once or twice in a career kind of decision, I don't know how they could have found that way.

There is a definite need for more specialist jurors. I know a couple of people who have been involved in fraud trials that have been quite open about the content being way beyond them.

The problem is, if you select a jury of accountants on a tax case, it would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
 
Off for 4 sessions of boozing with my pals today, very much looking forward to seeing them as haven't seen most of them for 6 months plus
Am expecting for it to be pretty messy by the mid to end of the day
 
scaramanga said:
It's not the jury's place to decide whether or not it should be punished. It's their place to decide whether or not the accused did the things they were accused of.

The sooner that bunch of terrorists are officially recognised as such, the better.
Click to expand...

It may not be their role to decide, but they did decide. While the premise of law is cold and logical; it never actually is. Stories are told, evidence is given, then a judgment is made.

Was this an example of injustice? Technically it was. Morally and ethically you could make a case for the jury having calmly delivered fairness and balance.

Society and people made the judgment. Regardless of the legal technicalities, they found that a few activists trying to make a stand against a large oil company were not deserving of punishment. Simple.

In most instances they would have been punished, let’s celebrate that morals overcame technicalities.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
It may not be their role to decide, but they did decide. While the premise of law is cold and logical; it never actually is. Stories are told, evidence is given, then a judgment is made.

Was this an example of injustice? Technically it was. Morally and ethically you could make a case for the jury having calmly delivered fairness and balance.

Society and people made the judgment. Regardless of the legal technicalities, they found that a few activists trying to make a stand against a large oil company were not deserving of punishment. Simple.

In most instances they would have been punished, let’s celebrate that morals overcame technicalities.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Celebrate what? That smashing the brick out of anything we don't like is acceptable if it fits within our moral code?

So you'd be ok with me blowing up the offices of HMRC?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Because the people decided. They didn't think that a demo against an oil company warranted the punishment. @JerusalemMan doesn't like these people who are trying to protect the world we all live in, probably has a dislike of them in general. 12 members of the public on the other hand came to their own judgment. You can define justice in many different ways.
Click to expand...

The jury don't decide the punishment, their job is to derermine whether they've committed the crime they're charged with. What we're saying is you can go smash a few windows, drop a bit of graffiti here and there for others to sort just because you don't agree with their stance on something. Even the judge said there was no defence.
 
I had a near escape from a horrible accident earlier.

Driving to a hairdresser appointment, stopped at a zebra crossing, facing uphill. A queue of maybe 3 cars on the other side of the crossing coming downhill. A group of 4 kids/young teens came down the hill on their bikes doing wheelies and decided to overtake the traffic on their side. I had just started to move off as the crossing was now clear. One of the kids, mid-wheelie, turned his bike towards my car, whether deliberately or accidentally I don't know. I slammed on the brakes, luckily I was barely moving anyway. He swerved, missed my car thankfully, lost balance as he went past me and ended up sprawled on the road. I saw him get up again, his mates were laughing, so assumed he must be OK. I parked up for my appointment and as I walked back they were standing across the road. I walked over to make sure he was OK, which apart from a slightly grazed leg he was. I told them not to be so stupid but I probably should have read them more of the riot act. At that age they think they're invincible but I don't know if he appreciated how close he came to a serious accident. To be honest I was a bit shaken up by the near miss.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I had a near escape from a horrible accident earlier.

Driving to a hairdresser appointment, stopped at a zebra crossing, facing uphill. A queue of maybe 3 cars on the other side of the crossing coming downhill. A group of 4 kids/young teens came down the hill on their bikes doing wheelies and decided to overtake the traffic on their side. I had just started to move off as the crossing was now clear. One of the kids, mid-wheelie, turned his bike towards my car, whether deliberately or accidentally I don't know. I slammed on the brakes, luckily I was barely moving anyway. He swerved, missed my car thankfully, lost balance as he went past me and ended up sprawled on the road. I saw him get up again, his mates were laughing, so assumed he must be OK. I parked up for my appointment and as I walked back they were standing across the road. I walked over to make sure he was OK, which apart from a slightly grazed leg he was. I told them not to be so stupid but I probably should have read them more of the riot act. At that age they think they're invincible but I don't know if he appreciated how close he came to a serious accident. To be honest I was a bit shaken up by the near miss.
Click to expand...

You have every right to feel shaken, sounds very scary. Cyclists and young people both believe that they are always in the right, as well as being immortal, so the intersection is even worse.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I had a near escape from a horrible accident earlier.

Driving to a hairdresser appointment, stopped at a zebra crossing, facing uphill. A queue of maybe 3 cars on the other side of the crossing coming downhill. A group of 4 kids/young teens came down the hill on their bikes doing wheelies and decided to overtake the traffic on their side. I had just started to move off as the crossing was now clear. One of the kids, mid-wheelie, turned his bike towards my car, whether deliberately or accidentally I don't know. I slammed on the brakes, luckily I was barely moving anyway. He swerved, missed my car thankfully, lost balance as he went past me and ended up sprawled on the road. I saw him get up again, his mates were laughing, so assumed he must be OK. I parked up for my appointment and as I walked back they were standing across the road. I walked over to make sure he was OK, which apart from a slightly grazed leg he was. I told them not to be so stupid but I probably should have read them more of the riot act. At that age they think they're invincible but I don't know if he appreciated how close he came to a serious accident. To be honest I was a bit shaken up by the near miss.
Click to expand...
Should have given the little clams a smack
We get it all the time where we live, as you say kids doing wheelies down the middle of the road making traffic swerve them, idiots
 
P.D. said:
The jury don't decide the punishment, their job is to derermine whether they've committed the crime they're charged with. What we're saying is you can go smash a few windows, drop a bit of graffiti here and there for others to sort just because you don't agree with their stance on something. Even the judge said there was no defence.
Click to expand...

It is not a 'stance' it is a global emergency. A moral code is only as good as the faith people invest into it. Ultimately the people decided that fighting for the environment against a rich and polluting corporation wasn't such a bad thing. That is a success of democracy.
 
scaramanga said:
Celebrate what? That smashing the brick out of anything we don't like is acceptable if it fits within our moral code?

So you'd be ok with me blowing up the offices of HMRC?
Click to expand...

Their aim is publicity. If you wanted to highlight some atrocity from HMRC, by all means go brick on their doorstep and find a way to make the world take note.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Their aim is publicity. If you wanted to highlight some atrocity from HMRC, by all means go brick on their doorstep and find a way to make the world take note.
Click to expand...
How about theft and extortion - does that cover it?

So where's the limit on what I can do to them for disagreeing with what they do? Can I blow the whole building up?
 
scaramanga said:
How about theft and extortion - does that cover it?

So where's the limit on what I can do to them for disagreeing with what they do? Can I blow the whole building up?
Click to expand...

It’s obvious - if you think public sentiment would sympathise and a jury would acquit you. Our society is regulated by the public making moral judgments.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
It’s obvious - if you think public sentiment would sympathise and a jury would acquit you. Our society is regulated by the public making moral judgments.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I don't think it was reasonable for the terrorists to have assumed they would be found not guilty. The judge didn't, most of the public seem not to, anyone reporting on the case doesn't, and the legal professionals I know don't think so either.
 
SpurMeUp said:
It is not a 'stance' it is a global emergency. A moral code is only as good as the faith people invest into it. Ultimately the people decided that fighting for the environment against a rich and polluting corporation wasn't such a bad thing. That is a success of democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can confuse a moral argument with a legal one like in this case, you seem to think it's fine to go and smash up buildings if it's for a cause you believe in I don't so we'll have to call it quits :)
 
markysimmo said:
Off for 4 sessions of boozing with my pals today, very much looking forward to seeing them as haven't seen most of them for 6 months plus
Am expecting for it to be pretty messy by the mid to end of the day
Click to expand...
The sooner they stop these drinking rules the better
Was great fun catching up but it was painful getting drinks at times
I really felt sorry for the bar staff, tough going for them currently
 
I've woken up today feeling very shaky, sick and all-round rough. Seems I have my first hangover in years after spending a day with my dad, brothers and brothers-in-law celebrating my 40th.
Not a feeling I have missed.

But lovely to go to a pub and then sit in a garden round a fire pit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back