Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[theclaud]

after all I will be literally saving lives

Specious bullshit, Unkers. Setting fire to abortion clinics does not save lives - on the contrary, it almost certainly constitutes either an intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would be endangered - either of which would make you guilty of criminal damage and quite rightly get you banged up. And this is before we even consider the fact that the people the story is about were acting openly and with full responsibility, instead of being creepy voyeurs sizing women up while they access healthcare services.

The defence in the case above is almost certainly that they had lawful excuse, which means the damage is not criminal. It's not a precedent - a similar defence was successful in the Kingsnorth case (well over a decade ago) and elsewhere, and a similar argument using the Genocide Act was used by the women who smashed up a hawk jet with hammers in the 90s to prevent it being used to kill people in East Timor.

 

[newfhouse]

12 good conservative Catholics

Oxymoron.

 

[icowden]

That is the point. I was not angling for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion but rather arguing for consistency. Supposing I burn down a clinic but end up blessed with a jury excusively of 12 good conservative Catholics and true, would those supporting the glass smashers be fine if such jury acquitted me on the basis they agreed with my motives?

Yes, although your scenario cannot happen. Firstly the jurors are chosen at random. Secondly the defence and prosecution are able to vet the Jury. Specifically they are given the Jurors details and can then carry out their own checks. They can then challenge if they think that any member of the jury is unsuitable. I'm sure that if they noted that all twelve jurors were Conservative Catholics, they would challenge that.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, although your scenario cannot happen. Firstly the jurors are chosen at random. Secondly the defence and prosecution are able to vet the Jury. Specifically they are given the Jurors details and can then carry out their own checks. They can then challenge if they think that any member of the jury is unsuitable. I'm sure that if they noted that all twelve jurors were Conservative Catholics, they would challenge that.

Is that true?, it sounds rather American. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

 

[icowden]

Is that true?, it sounds rather American. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

Yes. Although the process is considered exceptional rather than routine. But if there were concerns that the Jury was not impartial, then there is recourse:-
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes. Although the process is considered exceptional rather than routine. But if there were concerns that the Jury was not impartial, then there is recourse:-
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

Reading the link, it doesn’t read to me as if a jury check would be applicable for a few broken windows.

 

[icowden]

Reading the link, it doesn’t read to me as if a jury check would be applicable for a few broken windows.

The key points are that the parties to any trial may inspect a copy of the panel from which the Jury will be chosen in order to a) enquire about members of the panel and b) decide whether any should be challenged.

And:-

With regards to challenges to the polls, a juror can be challenged on the grounds of bias, which would cause him to be unsuitable to try the case. For example, where he has expressed hostility to one side or connected to one side in some way.

Thus the defence could present prima facie evidence to the Judge that because of the religious convictions of one or more Jurors they should be replaced.

 

[mudsticks]

From one of the defendants

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/20/windows-major-bank-jury-climate-crisis

 

[albion]

The misspost
'https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-carbon-emissions-than-poorest-66-report-says
I also imagine the base aspiration in owning a car pollutes for 20 people too.'

And again.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-impact-of-the-middle-classes-carbon-divide

 

[matticus]

I'm not 100% sure this is geniune:


View: https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1726618593025257560?t=IzcZVs1tVvEGm-dudpJfMg&s=19

(policeman threatens to eject fake JSO protestor)

I hope it is!

 

[Fab Foodie]

Was just scrolling through my fb feeds and on a Vanlife page somebody converting a van for full-time living asked about a woodburning stove vs. a diesel heater for off-grid warmth. One poster dared to suggest that wood-burners were very bad bad for the environment and particularly the health of those that live close or with a wood-burner - all readily verifiable stuff. The bile and nonsense he received for posting such a comment was out of proportion. 'Humans have learned to adapt to burning wood' - WTF? Roll-on associated Covid-deniers, whataboutery and flat earthers piling-on.
The battle is lost people, this earth as far as a planet sustainable for a large human population is concerned - we're all farked.
We don't need JSO, we need Just Stop Humans....

 

[albion]

Hubris has always been deadly.

 

[albion]

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/temperature-disaster-climate-cop28-b2450294.html

2C passed. No worries, those scammers at the Brexitgraph will continue tell us it is all a hoax.

 

[albion]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-address-climate-crisis-says-thomas-piketty

The saying tip of the iceberg is also on extinction watch.

 

[presta]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-address-climate-crisis-says-thomas-piketty

I've been arguing this for years.

At one end of the scale we have people who can't afford basic heating for the home, and at the other there are people with money to throw away heating patios etc, so regardless of whether prices go up or down they're exacerbating one problem or the other.

The only way out of that bind is some form of progressive charging so that you penalise the rich profligate, not the poor frugal. A simple starter that would cost nothing is to ban standing charges, and put the cost on the unit price.

Anyone been watching this series? It was refreshing to see someone cutting through all the bullsh!t for a change.