Finally really good news...

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Turns out ignoring an injunction and continue to block the M25 leads to jailtime.. After the ridiculous statue killers verdict and the celebratory topic, finally an reason to start a topic about a real celebration.
Not because of the eco/insulate/climate crybabies but due the the fact that justice has been upheld again. Link to bbc news article because daily mail triggers and such..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60233793

 

[Xipe Totec]

View: https://youtu.be/WUd52TXyHTg

 

[Hitchington]

 

[winjim]

It's like everything you've written is correct, except the exact opposite.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

It's like everything you've written is correct, except the exact opposite.

So you would celebrate if the court says ''whoopie'' you ignored injuctions, that is against the law, but we don't feel like enforcing it so there you go walk away bye bye? And if so are you aware of the precedent that would create? i mean why would an insulate now group be allowed but a ''we want to eat cake and block the m25 protest'' not? Or anything more extreme.
It's just not how law should work.

 

[winjim]

So you would celebrate if the court says ''whoopie'' you ignored injuctions, that is against the law, but we don't feel like enforcing it so there you go walk away bye bye? And if so are you aware of the precedent that would create? i mean why would an insulate now group be allowed but a ''we want to eat cake and block the m25 protest'' not? Or anything more extreme.
It's just not how law should work.

Deliberately breaching an injunction is not the same thing as ignoring it.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Deliberately breaching an injunction is not the same thing as ignoring it.

bit nitpicking but true not the sme but the arguments against it are the same let me quote what the judge said on that

The judge said: 'We are simply concerned with the fact that an order was made by a court and a court order is to be obeyed.

'The rule of law would fall apart if people decided which orders and which laws they chose to abide by and which they did not.'

I think that pretty much sums it op not?

 

[winjim]

bit nitpicking but true not the sme but the arguments against it are the same let me quote what the judge said on that

I think that pretty much sums it op not?

Yes, the protesters consider the climate crisis of greater importance than the rule of law and in fact are using the judicial system to bring publicity to their cause.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Yes, the protesters consider the climate crisis of greater importance than the rule of law and in fact are using the judicial system to bring publicity to their cause.

So if the (hopefully non-existent) ''federation of child sex dreamers'' does the same you would agree? i mean if they also believe their goal off greater importance why respect the law right?

 

[winjim]

So if the (hopefully non-existent) ''federation of child sex dreamers'' does the same you would agree? i mean if they also believe their goal off greater importance why respect the law right?

I'm afraid you've lost me.

 

[theclaud]

we want to eat cake and block the m25

I can get behind this as well, to be fair.

 

[Xipe Totec]

So if the (hopefully non-existent) ''federation of child sex dreamers'' does the same you would agree? i mean if they also believe their goal off greater importance why respect the law right?

Wow.

 

[Ian H]

What's not to like about linking climate change campaigners and paedophiles. I mean it stands to reason, dunnit.

 

[Hitchington]

So if the (hopefully non-existent) ''federation of child sex dreamers'' does the same you would agree? i mean if they also believe their goal off greater importance why respect the law right?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

What's not to like about linking climate change campaigners and paedophiles. I mean it stands to reason, dunnit.

It's not what i said, my point and i say that now and many times before is that, it not really about the topic, it about the believe you can put aside the law, because it's not convenient, where does it stop? And at what point do those ''protestors'' expect protection from the law and how is the law at that point then good enough, what that i mean if you think you can cancel parts of the law, what makes you able to tell others to follow that same law? It's a bit the same situation the PM is now in, does'nt look like he is still pm by the end of this week, with good reason.