Extinction Rebellion founder jailed for five years!

Rather than climate emergency protesters being needlessly imprisoned, I’d prefer to see water company bosses, who are responsible for pumping sh** into our rivers, being locked up. Now that would be justice!

Given community sentences I think these people would have used them to serve their cause and as another way of protesting. Imprisonment was the only possible sentence.

As I said before, we need to look past what they actually did to the very complex and wide ranging conspiracy to undermine public order behind them. It was for the conspiracy behind the demonstrations that they were sent down for these long sentences, not just the protests themselves.

maddyone

A judge gave these sentences and judges are only allowed to give recommended sentences for the crime. There are strict guidelines about sentencing and any mitigating factors, if there are any, have to be considered. Neither Keir Starmer, nor anyone else, should be interfering in the justice system.
The crime has been committed. The judge has given his/her judgment. It’s not for others to agree or disagree. None of us, unless we have a Gransnetter who is a judge in criminal law, are qualified to dismiss this judgement.

The operative word is ‘should’
Already there are calls for the attorney general to step in as the sentencing is called ‘disproportionate’ by some.There will be pressure on Keir from a certain quarter.
The sentences should stand and I hope they will do.

LizzieDrip

Rather than climate emergency protesters being needlessly imprisoned, I’d prefer to see water company bosses, who are responsible for pumping sh** into our rivers, being locked up. Now that would be justice!

No reason we can’t have both!And needlessly is your opinion.

Those convicted can always appeal their sentences. No reason for the AG to get involved.

They won't serve five years anyway, will they?
Perhaps tagging might have been an option, but then that must come at a cost, if it's used properly.

When many people protest against a particular sentence that has been set by the judge, it can descend into a sort of mob rule. We are not qualified to make judgments that’s why we’re not judges because judges receive training and know the law, so that it can be administered fairly and properly. It doesn’t matter if some of us feel that it’s a just cause so the perpetrators shouldn’t go to prison, what matters is that these people broke the law, they have been charged, found guilty, and received the sentence that the judge deemed appropriate, after due consideration.

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

And needlessly is your opinion

Yes Oreo it is my opinion.

Not sure why it’s ’needless’ Last time I looked anyone’s options were needed - even those that are at odds with your own.

Oreo apologies - I misinterpreted your interpretation of my post. Must stop trying to multi task🙈

vegansrock

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

Well that’s as maybe, judges deal with the law as it is, not as as you wish it is. Judges can’t say that in their opinion the law should be a, b, or c. Judges hear evidence or accept a guilty plea, and if found guilty, they sentence the defendant appropriately according to sentencing guidelines.

Starmer wants to reduce the number of people in prison.

He will have to set up his own government’s rules, issue new sentencing guidelines and communicate those to the judges.

Undoubtedly any changes will be popular or unpopular, depending on the POV of those who read them and those who are affected by them.

The Judges will still have to do as maddyone says above.
Judges hear evidence or accept a guilty plea, and if found guilty, they sentence the defendant appropriately according to sentencing guidelines.

Go Maddyone - our Judges are chosen from people with vast experience of the law and because of their skills and knowledge.
GSM is correct, they can and almost certainly will appeal their sentences.
Ive confidence Starmer has enough to be getting on with

So how come protestors broke the law throwing Colston’s statue in Bristol’s floating harbour but were allowed to use climate change as mitigating circumstances? And you could say it was planned as they came with grappling hooks and ropes. The law needs to be consistent.

I do believe that was a different kind of crime. Was it criminal damage? It didn’t cost millions like this one did

I think we’d have to know the exact crime they all charged with, whether or not they pleaded guilty, if there were previous offences, and if there were any mitigating factors.

Is it pleaded or pled?
Neither sounds right to me.

vegansrock

The previous government changed the law so the defendants could not put their defence to the jury. That could be reversed for a start.

i don't understand this.
what do you mean the defendants could not put their defence to the jury ?
they are represented by counsel who will certainly put the defence case.
do you mean mitigation, or the defendants directly addressing the jury ?

I also think Starmer has enough to be getting on with. I’m hoping to see improvements in the NHS as I’m waiting for spinal surgery and live with daily pain, so that is a very important issue for me.
Starmer may very well be relieved that these organisers will be out of action for a bit and give him time to attend to other issues.

pleaded in UK, certainly.
pled in USA.
but it's easier to say,
did they plead guilty or not guilty.

25Avalon

So how come protestors broke the law throwing Colston’s statue in Bristol’s floating harbour but were allowed to use climate change as mitigating circumstances? And you could say it was planned as they came with grappling hooks and ropes. The law needs to be consistent.

The Colston Statue was criminal damage and the defence mounted related to the particular incident.

The Just Oil activists were charged and convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance.

maddyone

Is it pleaded or pled?
Neither sounds right to me.

Pleaded, at a guess.
It would make them miserable little pleaders.

Pleaded. I hate ‘pled’, it’s an Americanism.

My take on last night? If it’s too dangerous for the police and the fire service to go in then there’s only one option. The army needs to go in.

Yes. They are armed and you don’t mess with them.