What is the point of prison?

[Archie_tect]

Providing you maintain adequate cross ventilation in your loft space as recommended in the Building Regs you should be OK.

I'd recommend 3 layers of 150mm thick Earth Wool quilt instead, cross laid between and over the ceiling joists to avoid any gaps with a U-value of about 0.14 W/sqm.degC [that's good]. Makes everyone happy, avoids any awkward glue incidents and saves you up to 20% on your energy bills [but don't forget to insulate your loft hatch and put foam strip round the edge to seal the gap... people often forget that]

 

[matticus]

There are two sides to this:
1 - did the courts treat the protestors fairly? Well, I think it's disproportionate, compared to deaths by negligent driving (to name just one area of offence). Climate protest isn't the topic here, but anyway ...
2 - does this sort of sentence deter people? Almost certainly; so Pale Rider's example seems helpful in moving the discussion forward. We all know from experience as children, parents, pupils or teachers that threat of punishment needs to be credible "I've warned you 5 times now, little William!"

Thanks for reading.

 

[newfhouse]

The courts are only doing half of the job.

Tough on protesters… tick;
Tough on the causes of protest… not so much.

 

[Archie_tect]

[Off topic but related to Matticus's point 1] If the protests are designed to shine a light on the waste of energy caused by transport that would be understandable but blocking roads to highlight the need to insulate homes seems an odd connection and is a route that doesn't appear to resonate with Joe Public's understanding or sympathy, so it is fundamentally flawed.

 

[matticus]

[Off topic but related to Matticus's point 1] If the protests are designed to shine a light on the waste of energy caused by transport that would be understandable but blocking roads to highlight the need to insulate homes seems an odd connection and is a route that doesn't appear to resonate with Joe Public's understanding or sympathy, so it is fundamentally flawed.

We'll have to agree to disagree - but feel free to post this on a Climate Change / Protest thread.

 

[Pale Rider]

[Off topic but related to Matticus's point 1] If the protests are designed to shine a light on the waste of energy caused by transport that would be understandable but blocking roads to highlight the need to insulate homes seems an odd connection and is a route that doesn't appear to resonate with Joe Public's understanding or sympathy, so it is fundamentally flawed.

I agree the means of protest does appear to have little public support.

They may have picked the wrong target in entitled motorists.

Causing enormous pollution causing traffic jams to protest about pollution does make them look rather silly.

They also got off to a bad start with the tale of someone falling seriously ill in the back of an ambulance in one of their jams, and someone else being injured in a pile up caused by the protest.

Once the public perception gets away from you, as a protester it's very hard to set it straight again.

 

[newfhouse]

Causing enormous pollution causing traffic jams

Traffic causes traffic jams.

someone else being injured in a pile up caused by the protest.

Yes, they literally forced motorists to drive their cars into each other at speed. Bloody do-gooders.

 

[BoldonLad]

I did quote your post challenging me about not commenting on 'societal ills' and referred you to PR's post- I can't answer for him and he would be rightly aggrieved if I did. I'd previously agreed with him that adequately funding the police isn't likely and that there must be alternative ways to help prevent offences being caused in the first place. PR rightly believes that offenders needs to take responsibility for their own weaknesses but I suggested that that can only happen through education and support... this weakness or lack of moral/ethical values can't necessarily be blamed on the parents of offenders, as you have found, so it must be a societal issue which is when PR specifically referred to 'societal ills'.

You don't know the circumstances, but, you cannot possibly know that, because, you do not know the circumstances.

You still have not answered what YOU view as "Sociatal ills", and, now that you have mentioned it, would what are these "moral/ethical value", and, who is going to decide what they are?

 

[Archie_tect]

I don't know BL, that's why I can't speak for PR or for you, that's why we are all here discussing it trying to find some common purpose, but I do know that every one of us has a personal responsibility and, despite best endeavours, no-one can impose a sense of responsibility on others unless that person wants to conform. So we as parents can only guide and direct- as can society. However, when moral; and ethical values are not demonstrated uniformly by every individual [ especially those in high office or in respected positions in society] then chaos ensues, because people then have models to whom they can point and say, "well if they break the rules why should I try?"

 

[mudsticks]

There are two sides to this:
1 - did the courts treat the protestors fairly? Well, I think it's disproportionate, compared to deaths by negligent driving (to name just one area of offence). Climate protest isn't the topic here, but anyway ...
2 - does this sort of sentence deter people? Almost certainly; so Pale Rider's example seems helpful in moving the discussion forward. We all know from experience as children, parents, pupils or teachers that threat of punishment needs to be credible "I've warned you 5 times now, little William!"

Thanks for reading.

Getting arrested and even imprisoned is part of the 'drawing the issue to the wider public's attention ' strategy.

XR have been using it for some time.
Anti frackers, anti deportation etc etc same.

As have other groups in the past.

Using their bodies, and willingness to get arrested to show their determination.

Some lawyers are also activists on these issues, there is a cross over.
I know several people working in law who do this kind of work for low or no fee

We had our own dedicated legal representative in Glasgow, to call on should we have needed it.

Over 100,000 people on that march
Several of them from on here.

Was there lots of aggro??

No there was not, it was a very positive show of alliance and solidarity from many different people from all walks of life profession and background.

All very concerned about this issue..

Did that fact of such strength and solidarity in peaceful protest get reported much.?

As much as insulate Britain's, more 'disruptive' protest??

Nope it didn't, did it ??

There were hundreds of bored looking police, standing around , waiting for it to kick off.

It never did..

So it wasn't 'newsworthy' to many papers who thrive on stirring up trouble, and only reporting the 'less troublesome' side of climate activism..

A quick reminder ...

One day the idea of digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and allowing the residue to go into our atmosphere , will we hope be regarded with the same degree of distaste as say slavery is now, perhaps..

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't know BL, that's why I can't speak for PR or for you, that's why we are all here discussing it trying to find some common purpose, but I do know that every one of us has a personal responsibility and, despite best endeavours, no-one can impose a sense of responsibility on others unless that person wants to conform. So we as parents can only guide and direct- as can society. However, when moral; and ethical values are not demonstrated uniformly by every individual [ especially those in high office or in respected positions in society] then chaos ensues, because people then have models to whom they can point and say, "well if they break the rules why should I try?"

1. So... we do have "personal responsibility? (I would agree by the way)

2. I would also agree that it is not possible to impose a sense of responsibility on an other, unless that person wants to conform. The question is, what do we do about those who do not want to conform.

3. I agree, moral and ethical values have to be upheld by all

I don't understand why you cannot explain YOUR view of what are acceptable ethical and/or moral standards, after all, YOUR view has no bearing on what @Pale Rider , or myself may think are acceptable standards.

For those who fall short of these "moral and ethical standards", are they barred from "high Office" or "respected positions" indefinitely, or, is it possible they can redeem themselves? (I will put my hand up here, in the past, I have fallen a bit short of perfection).

 

[mudsticks]

Look out folks..

There's an expert, with an opinion on the loose..

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/19/do-long-jail-sentences-stop-we-ask-the-expert

 

[Archie_tect]

1. So... we do have "personal responsibility? (I would agree by the way)

2. I would also agree that it is not possible to impose a sense of responsibility on an other, unless that person wants to conform. The question is, what do we do about those who do not want to conform.

3. I agree, moral and ethical values have to be upheld by all

4. I don't understand why you cannot explain YOUR view of what are acceptable ethical and/or moral standards, after all, YOUR view has no bearing on what @Pale Rider , or myself may think are acceptable standards.

5. For those who fall short of these "moral and ethical standards", are they barred from "high Office" or "respected positions" indefinitely, or, is it possible they can redeem themselves? (I will put my hand up here, in the past, I have fallen a bit short of perfection).

1 and 3... great, signed off!
2. What to do indeed- everyone is capable of reform but whether and how they choose that path then sets how much freedom they then get to enjoy under the penal system... but it depends also on how much effort we as a society put into helping them too, which is where PR and I probably [but not necessarily] part ways.
4. Everyone derserves help and support, whether to be weaned off drugs, alcohol ope any dependency... you can't just keep locking people up- that clearly fails... also depends on how tolerant we are to failure... how many attempts do you make before you institutionalise someone or place them in care is just as important because personal freedom is the goal when setting active deterrents. We don';t want to escalate dangers where someone commits more serious crimes to avoid being caught.
5. Each case is unique- there isn't a single answer- ie it depends on the seriousness of the ethical/ moral breakdown... that is fairly well set by common standards in society now... we tend to give the benefit of doubt unless it is clear cut... eg ministerial code breaking should lead to immediate suspension and barring from high office.

Who should judge?- it's a reasonably balanced system now with few serious errors of judgement- as long as everyone has the right to appeal.

 

[BoldonLad]

1 and 3... great, signed off!
2. What to do indeed- everyone is capable of reform but whether and how they choose that path then sets how much freedom they then get to enjoy under the penal system... but it depends also on how much effort we as a society put into helping them too, which is where PR and I probably [but not necessarily] part ways.
4. Everyone derserves help and support, whether to be weaned off drugs, alcohol ope any dependency... you can't just keep locking people up- that clearly fails... also depends on how tolerant we are to failure... how many attempts do you make before you institutionalise someone or place them in care is just as important because personal freedom is the goal when setting active deterrents. We don';t want to escalate dangers where someone commits more serious crimes to avoid being caught.
5. Each case is unique- there isn't a single answer- ie it depends on the seriousness of the ethical/ moral breakdown... that is fairly well set by common standards in society now... we tend to give the benefit of doubt unless it is clear cut... eg ministerial code breaking should lead to immediate suspension and barring from high office.

Who should judge?- it's a reasonably balanced system now with few serious errors of judgement- as long as everyone has the right to appeal.

All very reasonable... but....

Many (if not all) miscreants do not spring into being as such, there is a path, who decides what constitutes "acceptable" behaviour, in the "development" stage, eg, is nicking a few garden gnomes OK?, how about vandalising a neighbours vegetable patch?, stealing a bicycle?, stealing a car?, on a slightly more "moral" tone how about a bit of extra marital sex with a neighbours wife or daughter, perhaps with an unplanned pregnancy thrown in? All that is before we get to the drug related stuff.

I was looking more for your ideas on what was/was not morally, socially and ethically acceptable, because, I don't think the bolded bit is true, and, even if it is, it is most certainly not adhered to IMHO.

 

[Archie_tect]

All very reasonable... but....

Many (if not all) miscreants do not spring into being as such, there is a path, who decides what constitutes "acceptable" behaviour, in the "development" stage, eg, is nicking a few garden gnomes OK?, how about vandalising a neighbours vegetable patch?, stealing a bicycle?, stealing a car?, on a slightly more "moral" tone how about a bit of extra marital sex with a neighbours wife or daughter, perhaps with an unplanned pregnancy thrown in? All that is before we get to the drug related stuff.

I was looking more for your ideas on what was/was not morally, socially and ethically acceptable, because, I don't think the bolded bit is true, and, even if it is, it is most certainly not adhered to IMHO.

The moral/ ethical code before criminality is entirely down to parental influence and control... and what we, ie you and I, would remember as the triumvirate of parents/ teachers and the local bobby coordinating and agreeing on acceptable behaviour and setting boundaries.

It is the need to set clear boundaries of acceptable behaviour that we have to set for children - now parents might take their child's side rather than agree with a teacher when there is a disciplinary concern about inappropriate behaviour early one... children always push boundaries- it's up to us as parents/ grandparents and the immediate local community to set standards of what is or isn't acceptable. I realise in this day and age discipline is a problem because some children in some neighbourhoods don't get much parental or community input... difficult isn't it, but if we want to provide the kind of support that we, ie you and I, used to get it's a necessary and vital task. I would suggest most children and parents are good at it.

This isn't a one way street BL, everyone has a role and an opinion.