[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-stop-oil

Some Just Stop Oil protestors were caught trying to disrupt Manchester Airport. This is a criminal offence and they were prosecuted. All but one of them pleaded guilty, presumably on the advice of their lawyers who would have then argued in mitigation that it was an act of conscience. I don't think they were sent to prison.

One of them, apparently unfazed by the others pleading guilty, decided to plead not guilty and argue she did it out of "necessity". This went about as well as you'd expect.

I received a 30-month jail sentence for nonviolent resistance. Why so harsh? Because protest works

Courts really don't like people who fuck them about. Why would there not be a "necessity" to shut down another airport next week?. I'm sure this person's lawyer made that point. I've noticed before that some in Just Stop Oil are incredibly gung ho about this stuff. Some of them a few months ago were posting YouTube videos of themselves breaking injunctions. I don't think the Guardian needs to be encouraging it as well, with the implication that the others who pleaded guilty are sell-outs. Their stance is no more or less admirable because they recognized they broke the law. The judge rightly pointed out that there's a long tradition of protestors pleading guilty, where the motivation of conscience is basically accepted and treatment is relatively lenient.

As for the protest working, my impression is that disruption of infrastructure is seriously unpopular. It's possible that one of the test match pitches gets dug up by the "Free Inigo Rumbelow" campaign, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Boiler]

As for the protest working, my impression is that disruption of infrastructure is seriously unpopular. It's possible that one of the test match pitches gets dug up by the "Free Inigo Rumbelow" campaign, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Remember the time that Extinction Rebellion protestor very nearly got lynched when he climbed on a Tube train? He was lucky to get out alive from that one.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That was the absolute nadir. Shutting down electric public transport. They didn’t repeat that.

Air travel is a better target but even that catches lots of people taking their short haul annual holiday or travelling for work who don’t appreciate it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, a positive article about planning reform, including the nature aspect. Credit to The Guardian for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s#comments

[The Weeping Angel]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-stop-oil

Some Just Stop Oil protestors were caught trying to disrupt Manchester Airport. This is a criminal offence and they were prosecuted. All but one of them pleaded guilty, presumably on the advice of their lawyers who would have then argued in mitigation that it was an act of conscience. I don't think they were sent to prison.

One of them, apparently unfazed by the others pleading guilty, decided to plead not guilty and argue she did it out of "necessity". This went about as well as you'd expect.

I received a 30-month jail sentence for nonviolent resistance. Why so harsh? Because protest works

Courts really don't like people who fuck them about. Why would there not be a "necessity" to shut down another airport next week?. I'm sure this person's lawyer made that point. I've noticed before that some in Just Stop Oil are incredibly gung ho about this stuff. Some of them a few months ago were posting YouTube videos of themselves breaking injunctions. I don't think the Guardian needs to be encouraging it as well, with the implication that the others who pleaded guilty are sell-outs. Their stance is no more or less admirable because they recognized they broke the law. The judge rightly pointed out that there's a long tradition of protestors pleading guilty, where the motivation of conscience is basically accepted and treatment is relatively lenient.

As for the protest working, my impression is that disruption of infrastructure is seriously unpopular. It's possible that one of the test match pitches gets dug up by the "Free Inigo Rumbelow" campaign, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Did Jolyon Maugham advise her?

[kreuzberger]

No. Next question from the resident sixth-wit?

[The Weeping Angel]

I'd rather be a sixth wit than a sixth-rate barrister

[Malcolm Armsteen]

And I quite like foxes.

[kreuzberger]

I'd rather be a sixth wit than a sixth-rate barrister

I am not convinced that that decision is entirely in your own hands.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Did Jolyon Maugham advise her?

He didn't prosecute her, that's for sure, seeing he signed that statement saying he wouldn't prosecute environmental protestors. As a tax silk, that would have never happened, and it's bad to associate the legal job with the lawyer's personal opinions.

I expect she had the same advice as all the others. But even I think 30 months is probably a bit steep.

[kreuzberger]

And I quite like foxes.

You've changed your tune! (I hope that you still look as delicious as ever in that kimono, mind ... )

[kreuzberger]

Did Jolyon Maugham advise her?

He didn't prosecute her ...

Nah, that was just a cheap jibe from a fan-boy, desperate to shore up some Doctor Potter banshee.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

And I quite like foxes.

You've changed your tune! (I hope that you still look as delicious as ever in that kimono, mind ... )

RS2_4182.jpeg (229.32 KiB) Viewed 793 times

[davidjay]

Christ but she sounds up her own arse. First rule of the law - if you're bang to rights say sorry. You don't have to mean it but the idea is to get as light a sentence as possible. And if you're too daft to realise that you deserve all you get.

[kreuzberger]

Foxes have never troubled me and neither do I own chicken - to be fair, on both counts.

Thing is; now that the weather has turned, we often go out to sleep now on our wee yatt on a Tuesday/Wednesday night with all the hatches open, and luxuriating in the opportunity to properly relax.

The foxes were going at it last night, hammer and tongs, and unsettling the ducks. On reflection, that might have been wild boar stamping their ground, but I am not a philatelist.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Just a picture of my grandmother with her pet fox riding on my grandfather's back...

Ginny, Tom & Fox.jpeg (441 KiB) Viewed 780 times

[The Weeping Angel]

Did Jolyon Maugham advise her?

He didn't prosecute her, that's for sure, seeing he signed that statement saying he wouldn't prosecute environmental protestors. As a tax silk, that would have never happened, and it's bad to associate the legal job with the lawyer's personal opinions.

I expect she had the same advice as all the others. But even I think 30 months is probably a bit steep.

I have noticed a trend for activists who are more than happy to break the law but are not happy about having to go to prison for their actions. Which is the opposite of what the activists they take inspiration from did. Martin Luther King wrote his letter from a Birmingham Jail for a reason.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Christ but she sounds up her own arse. First rule of the law - if you're bang to rights say sorry. You don't have to mean it but the idea is to get as light a sentence as possible. And if you're too daft to realise that you deserve all you get.

You don’t even really have to say sorry. She’s not the first person that’s ever found herself in this position, the law is perfectly capable of distinguishing between shutting down a runway to protest climate change and eg threatening to shut down an airport if they don’t pay you a ransom of a million pounds.

Just don’t waste the court’s time and don’t sound like you’d do the same thing next week given half a chance.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is beyond a joke. I wonder if they really are about to shift to "this is Ed Davey's moment". (Ed was a good minister, and I want him to wipe out the Tories, but given his new base, he's hardly going to be taxing Surrey to fund Grimsby).

Here's the headline they came up with today when you'd think the free school meals were enough of a story.

Free school meals extended but winter fuel changes could tax dead pensioners’ families

As one of the sane ones BTL points out, tax issues like this, with bad "optics", are nothing new. And can't we wait for the budget? I've seen even one of the better columnists say "the problem is it wasn't a clean U-turn". Well, it's certainly a problem if you keep going on about it all the time, yeah.

[Tubby Isaacs]

More genius here. Government sticks to manifesto commitment despite speculation (which we started). The speculation was- pathetically- Reeves saying that she wouldn't break fiscal rules, which was taken to imply this was ripe for cutting. BTL duly steamed in with "Rachel's spreadsheet balances, who cares if the world's ended?" Job done,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ing-review

Ministers have decided not to cut Labour’s landmark £13.2bn fund to fix draughty homes and install heat pumps and solar panels in next week’s spending review, it has emerged.

A government source confirmed Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, would not be making cuts to the flagship warm homes plan. The decision, which was first reported by the Daily Telegraph, marks a victory for Ed Miliband in his negotiations with the Treasury over the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s budget.

Labour pledged in its manifesto to spend an extra £6.6bn on household energy efficiency projects by the end of the current parliament in 2029. This doubled the amount already committed by the Conservatives, to reach a total £13.2bn.

I think it's fine to criticize the manifesto as having been over-cautious, and that was probably reflected in the relatively low winning vote share. But they're generally sticking to stuff that was in it (see Full Fact).

What's actually happened here? The Chancellor/Chief Secretary and a spending minister have taken time to agree a settlement. Though in any case agreeing it about four months before the Budget isn't exactly knife edge stuff. I've seen no sign that Reeves has been trying to get rid of this- for all her faults, she doesn't seem to be an egregious leaker. So why has Ed Milliband won (and presumably Reeves lost)?

I suppose it's not bad for Labour to have Milliband emphasized, with his left credibility (which is hard to square with some of the stuff he said about immigration and his relatively modest tax rising as leader). But I've got a feeling the Guardian isn't trying to be helpful here.