A just stop oil protester is going to miss her brothers wedding now that she has been locked up.

This news has ruined my weekend and I am searching for my tiny violin.

cc

maddyone

Perhaps the many thousands of owners of private jets could be targeted, and not the people who save all year to be able to go on holiday via an EasyJet plane.

Politicians are telling the truth. We are all aware of climate change. I think the speaker who came to the WI meeting sounds somewhat like the Just Stop Oil protesters. Maybe she’s a member.

Anyone who takes unecessary flights should stop doing it, be they private jet users or holidaymakers. I don't care if they have saved all year, people rarely speak about the pollution caused by planes.
Obviously every plane is polluting the atmosphere but many of us who live under flight paths can actually also see fuel being dumped.
I should add that I am not a barmy Just Stop Oil or XR person, just a normal human being who doesns't want the planet to be polluted any more.
And I no longer fly.

And I no longer fly.

So you have flown in the past? And no doubt enjoyed the results of flying.
What constitutes an unnecessary flight or a necessary flight?
I have a son who lives with his wife and family in the country of her birth. I cannot walk, cycle or even take the train to get there, I have to fly if I want to physically hug them. Does my once a year flight count as necessary or unnecessary? Perhaps you feel I just shouldn't ever see them again?
Private jets have a vastly bigger carbon footprint per passenger than a commercial airline, so should be the first to have their wings clipped.
Just because I still want to make one flight per year doesn't mean I don't care about the planet and do my best in all other areas.

Well said, Rosie51. The protesters should be targeting their ire at those countries which are causing massive pollution instead of ordinary people. As someone else commented on this thread, you don't see them popping over to China and gluing themselves to the roads there, do you?

I think what we need is education not these ridiculous protests. If people protest and by so doing break the law then they should pay the price, just like anybody else who breaks the law.

cc

Baggs

We all know that climate change is very, very serious

It isn't.

Baggs obviously doesn't live a flood-prone area or one hit by weather catastrophes. Anyone who can live comfortably above water level and away from hurricanes or bush fires will be OK - they're all right Jack.
Personally I'm safe from the weather - though I hate the heatwaves that are increasing every year. But many, many millions of people all over the world are suffering natural disasters and dying because of conditions that are completely beyond their control. They usually don't have the money to move to safer places and will simply die in droughts, floods, typhoons, fires and famines.

Deaths from climate disasters have reduced by 98% over the least century.

*last

But let's not derail the thread. I agree with the majority on here that protesters who cause damage to others should suffer the consequences.

maddyone

Perhaps the many thousands of owners of private jets could be targeted, and not the people who save all year to be able to go on holiday via an EasyJet plane.

Politicians are telling the truth. We are all aware of climate change. I think the speaker who came to the WI meeting sounds somewhat like the Just Stop Oil protesters. Maybe she’s a member.

Couldn’t agree more. Too many wealthy and privileged preach to the ‘lesser mortals’’, then get in their first-class jet seats, massive cars, houses, et al.
Show, don’t tell.

Not to derail the thread at all, but where do you get this information from Baggs, ie deaths from climate disasters have reduced by 98% over the last century, and how do you back up your claim that climate change is not very, very serious? Is there something we can read that backs your assertions? I’m asking genuinely.

I’d let them out for the day for their important family occasions … Drop them off 150 miles away and instruct them to WALK VERY SLOWLY to the venue I’d pay to watch that .

Is the Bride and Groom departing the Church in a 'Carriage and Four' ? And the honeymoon is in the same United Kingdom country, naturally.....absolutely NO travel by a vehicle powered with an Internal Combustion Engine, and if considering using an Aeroplane to travel abroad......
And let's hope the happy couple do NOT send the jailbird a "Wish you were here" card.

Disgraceful actions that caused such devastating problems and even heartache for so many other people and now they are moaning about missing a wedding. Do they really have no idea of the trouble they have caused for so many others? They deserve a prison sentence which is not something I would advocate for most people. I only hope they and their fellow conspirators learn from this.

Yes, she should have realised the inconvenience and drastic rearrangements thousands had to make because of her actions..

We're all concerned about climate change @rubysong. Not one of us would say we like it. But I wonder if your WI speaker ever goes anywhere by road? Or takes a plane? Or has a mobile phone (the plastics etc in them and the transport costs). The problem is, that the modern lives of all of us rely on things which contribute to climate change and we can't revert to the stone age. Manufacturing in Britain has been outsourced to China and their contribution to climate change has rocketed. No one has an answer to this....(but remember that during the Roman era, Britain was so warm that we grew grapes in our own vineyards - so perhaps temperature fluctuations are normal)

Maddy genuine question, did you not fly to New Zealand to see your daughter? If I have mixed you up I apologise.
One person's reason for flying should not be compared to another. My partner has just flown long haul to see his family, how else would he see them. Also if people save and want a holiday and need to fly, why should they not do so.

rafichagran

Maddy genuine question, did you not fly to New Zealand to see your daughter? If I have mixed you up I apologise.
One person's reason for flying should not be compared to another. My partner has just flown long haul to see his family, how else would he see them. Also if people save and want a holiday and need to fly, why should they not do so.

I think that's what maddyone said.

rafichagran

Maddy genuine question, did you not fly to New Zealand to see your daughter? If I have mixed you up I apologise.
One person's reason for flying should not be compared to another. My partner has just flown long haul to see his family, how else would he see them. Also if people save and want a holiday and need to fly, why should they not do so.

Yes rafichagran, we did fly to New Zealand to visit our daughter and her children. And as long as she stays there and we are able, we will continue to do so. In fact we’re hoping that our daughter and the children will be flying to visit us this Christmas.
I’ve no time for people telling me I shouldn’t fly when thousands of people have private jets which they use at a moment’s notice.
And something else that is rarely mentioned is that new technology is making flying much cleaner, and hopefully in the future it will be cleaner still.

I’ve no time for people telling me I shouldn’t fly when thousands of people have private jets which they use at a moment’s notice.
It's often the people who have or use private jets who are telling the rest of us we shouldn't fly.

Somewhere on the World of Data site is a set of graphs that show what produces the most emissions. Aviation does contribute something BUT the overwhelming mass is from industrialising by India, China & other large nations.

Whilst we may choose not to undertake leisure aviation, or be taxed or prohibited, to reduce aeroplane emissions, overall what we do as domestic consumers barely moves the dial.

Eating The Rich & their use of private planes also will not considerably reduce the level of emissions, what it does do is expose their hypocrisy & shallow thinking. Elton John, Prince Harry & Emma Thompson et al, I am looking at you…

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202407/medium-996862-d685ec1a-c4e6-4fb0-a193-9929452c7aa9.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202407/medium-515290-2c4ef295-8593-4094-b448-c143e8fdd51e.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202407/medium-550809-0ba952d3-bed1-46a7-9519-692490f56872.jpeg

Back to Cressie…

I tried to copy/paste the Judge’s comments but no joy. so here are some relevant screenshots. Sections 72 onwards.

It seems that Cressie & her legal team presented their reasoning in her defence & requests for mitigation in sentencing e.g I am too clever/talented/young/girly/musical/upper middle class/am not too well etc.

Quite rightly, the Judge addressed these arguments & Cressie’s own comments in court, & stated that none of those matters stopped her joining in the conspiracy & committing the disruptions - both criminal offences - so she would be sentenced accordingly.

Earlier in the Judge’s summary, he does state that considerable guidance was taken from other legal bodies, implying that the legal reasoning is sound.

I think that there is little room to wriggle through an appeal. But I am not a lawyer or legal trained so I watch with interest.

It seems that Cressie & her legal team presented their reasoning in her defence & requests for mitigation in sentencing e.g I am too clever/talented/ young/girly/ musical/ upper middle class/am not too well etc
Seriously?
😂😂😂😂

Ziplok

Not to derail the thread at all, but where do you get this information from Baggs, ie deaths from climate disasters have reduced by 98% over the last century, and how do you back up your claim that climate change is not very, very serious? Is there something we can read that backs your assertions? I’m asking genuinely.

Just Google have deaths due to climate change lessened over the last 100 years there are many articles from different sources.

GrannySquare

Somewhere on the World of Data site is a set of graphs that show what produces the most emissions. Aviation does contribute something BUT the overwhelming mass is from industrialising by India, China & other large nations.

Whilst we may choose not to undertake leisure aviation, or be taxed or prohibited, to reduce aeroplane emissions, overall what we do as domestic consumers barely moves the dial.

Eating The Rich & their use of private planes also will not considerably reduce the level of emissions, what it does do is expose their hypocrisy & shallow thinking. Elton John, Prince Harry & Emma Thompson et al, I am looking at you…

what we do as domestic consumers barely moves the dial

As we and other nations import so much of what we use from countries like China, basically because it is cheap, I don't think we can shrug off all responsibility for their emissions.

@choughdancer you make a good point.

I have barely a carbon toe nail print as I am notoriously tight in my use of resources, walk everywhere, use public transport & will chew string until I get the last drop of flavour. My consumption of goods made in China & India is small. All by choice.

I assume that manufacturing for export does increase emissions in China & India etc, but if all export halted there will still be significant manufacturing & domestic use of fossil fuels etc to meet the needs (& wants) of the many millions, & without trade etc these nations would be less stable. The global economy is a circus of spinning plates, knock out one plate & an artichoke sneezes. I am not saying that there is a natural order to the interaction between states, economies & populations.

What I sure of is that Net Zero in the UK is a naive fantasy peddled by the few who have little idea how to make complex things work - that is not a denial of CC & the impact of varying climate patterns on ecologies & populations.

There is no easy peasy fix, many esteemed scientists & economists differ & we have competing needs & standards of living.

JSO et al have done nothing to change my mind, affiliations, lifestyle choices & commitment to minimal consumption, Much of their argument is poorly stated, fanatic & disruptive.

GrannyGravy13

Ziplok

Not to derail the thread at all, but where do you get this information from Baggs, ie deaths from climate disasters have reduced by 98% over the last century, and how do you back up your claim that climate change is not very, very serious? Is there something we can read that backs your assertions? I’m asking genuinely.

Just Google have deaths due to climate change lessened over the last 100 years there are many articles from different sources.

Thanks, GG.

ourworldindata.org and humanprogress.org are also good sources of actual facts and data rather than emotional claptrap like Al Gore's ridiculous film.