[Misc] Eco protestors now vandalising works of art

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's easy to go over the top in crying for harsh punishment, but we should note that these are very long sentences when compared with similar acts in the UK. Their attack came 5 months after a climate change protester threw a cake at the Mona Lisa in Paris. I don't think he's been charged.

The Countryside Alliance lot who stormed the floor of the Commons in 2004 got suspended sentences.
The Fathers for Justice who threw condoms full of flour at Tony Blair in the Chamber also in 2004 got three figure fines.
Cai Yuan and Juan Jun Xi who had a pillowfight on Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' in 1999 were arrested, but not charged.
Vladimir Umanets got two years for causing an estimated £200k worth of damage to a Rothko in the Tate in 2012. The JSO pair damaged the frame of 'Sunflowers', largest damage estimate £10k.
The suffragette (and future member of the BUF) Mary Richardson, put seven slashes in the Rokeby Venus in 1914 and got six months. That painting was repaired and is estimated to be worth £72.5 million today. (Who knows what it would be worth without the attack? I'd guess £72.5 million. Let's see what the JSO protestors get for attacking the protective glass of the same painting in November last year.
The two blokes charged with felling the Sycamore Gap Tree go on trial in December.

The only longer sentences I found for non violent protest were for the JSO activists who targeted the M25 convicted last year. They got 4 or 5 years each. Five years is only six months less than the average sentence for sexual offences. The average sentence for violence against the person is just over the 20 months that one of these two got and less than the other. Her sentence was approx twice the average sentence for weapons possession. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1100192/prison-sentence-length-in-england-and-wales-by-offence/

The suffragette lesson suggests that it is the reactionary response to these protests that will make them historic, not the protests themselves. Apart from one of them being Bryan Ferry's son, nobody remembers the Countryside Alliance lot. They were quickly forgotten in a way they wouldn't have been had they got a couple of years inside. Whereas the strong sentences handed to the rioters in the summer acted as a deterrant to those who may have considered getting involved in future trouble, it's likley to have the opposite effect on committed political activists. These sentences will not stop these protests. They will just create political martyrs for the movement.

Its a horrible situation. They are right about the urgency. They are right that the world isn't acting as it should be to save itself. You can understand the frustration at billions of us doing nothing that will inconvenience us. Rightly or wrongly, they acted radically according to their consciences, but we all know that after they've served their time in prison, they'll come out and nothing will have changed.

I am not quite sure how you got to your final point. If you are working on the assumption that prison is a cure for crime, think again.

My understanding is prison is part deterrent (of questionable value - it deters me as a non-criminal, but....) and part punishment.

There is a wider question about sentences for different crimes, but this has always been the case.

Perhaps sentencing should be determined by a committee of readers of The Guardian. Or readers of the Daily Mail. Or both.

One thing is for certain. There will always be somebody who is unhappy about someone else's sentence. And most of us imagine we have a far better idea of how sentencing should work than the people running the system. I suspect we are wrong.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I tend to agree with you on most issues, but....

There is no suggestion our legal system is in the pocket of fossil fuel companies.

I expect there are numerous examples of tory politicians in the pockets of (etc etc).

But we have a labour government now. Aren't they supposed to be in the pockets of the unions and the wet-lefty wokerti?

Depends who actually paid for the suits in which the pockets are.

Keir Starmer received more clothes worth £16,000

Downing Street says the way the donations were initially declared has been changed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Could have gone to Specsavers........

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Depends who actually paid for the suits in which the pockets are.

Keir Starmer received more clothes worth £16,000

Downing Street says the way the donations were initially declared has been changed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Could have gone to Specsavers........

Are you suggesting that he was given a Shell suit?

 

[A1X]

Perhaps if JSO framed their actions as them expressing their “legitimate concerns” about the environment then they’d get more support from the tabloids?

 

[Stato]

I am not quite sure how you got to your final point. If you are working on the assumption that prison is a cure for crime, think again.

My understanding is prison is part deterrent (of questionable value - it deters me as a non-criminal, but....) and part punishment.

There is a wider question about sentences for different crimes, but this has always been the case.

Perhaps sentencing should be determined by a committee of readers of The Guardian. Or readers of the Daily Mail. Or both.

One thing is for certain. There will always be somebody who is unhappy about someone else's sentence. And most of us imagine we have a far better idea of how sentencing should work than the people running the system. I suspect we are wrong.

My last point wasn't about sentencing. It was about nothing changing in terms of the inadequate planet wide response to the climate threat. They are shouting into the void.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I am not quite sure how you got to your final point. If you are working on the assumption that prison is a cure for crime, think again.

My understanding is prison is part deterrent (of questionable value - it deters me as a non-criminal, but....) and part punishment.

There is a wider question about sentences for different crimes, but this has always been the case.

Perhaps sentencing should be determined by a committee of readers of The Guardian. Or readers of the Daily Mail. Or both.

One thing is for certain. There will always be somebody who is unhappy about someone else's sentence. And most of us imagine we have a far better idea of how sentencing should work than the people running the system. I suspect we are wrong.

There does seem to be a growing intolerance for dissent and obstructive/violent demos. The rhetoric from government and the law and order fraternity is getting more aggressive, sentences seem to be getting more severe, and the general public appear increasing angry back.

The rioters and associated nutcases at Southport have got longer prison terms than I can recall for similar recent offences, as have the soup/paint throwers.

I don't think that either will work. The longer sentences probably won't deter the most active activists, and the demonstrations won't alter anyone's existing mindset.

Chucking soup at a painting is a waste of soup. Obstructing a motorway is just tedious.

Setting fire to a mosque is a rather more serious.

 

[tedebear]

There does seem to be a growing intolerance for dissent and obstructive/violent demos. The rhetoric from government and the law and order fraternity is getting more aggressive, sentences seem to be getting more severe, and the general public appear increasing angry back.

The rioters and associated nutcases at Southport have got longer prison terms than I can recall for similar recent offences, as have the soup/paint throwers.

I don't think that either will work. The longer sentences probably won't deter the most active activists, and the demonstrations won't alter anyone's existing mindset.

Chucking soup at a painting is a waste of soup. Obstructing a motorway is just tedious.

Setting fire to a mosque is a rather more serious.

I agree and believe there is a growing intolerance for disrespect. Which is heartening as it shows the majority of people know right from wrong. JSO have some sort of misguided belief that its acceptable to disrespect people, property and public spaces to get their point across. They appear to believe their point of view is significant enough that they need to disrupt peoples lives, and ignore the rule of law. Can you imagine if we all did this for what we believed strongly in?

The only mindset that can be changed is JSO's and they need to change it themselves. If JSO swallowed some humble pie and changed tack, they might find they garner more support. Becuase a lot of what they say is correct and I agree with, but how they go about it is wrong.