[News] Just Stop Oil

[Algernon]

You keep minimising this as simply "a black eye", but the guy was pushed to the ground and kicked in the head. Either of those two actions could have killed him.

I wasn't suggesting it was anything to do with what happened. I was responding to Billy the Fish's post as a theoretical example.
I fully realise that the JSO guy could've suffered a severe injury or even death so didn't mention it specifically.
Minimising nothing.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I don’t think the person “had it coming” as I don’t like violence and think it’s an absolute last resort. But then I am also a realist and recognise that if I was doing something specifically to make other people take notice, and get angry, a very possible outcome is violence towards me.

You might not, but Fish-botherer certainly did:

'JSO are happy to indiscriminately target random members of the public with their protests. They have to accept that they're going to get a reaction.'

Violence was very much not the last resort in that situation. But let's give Punchy McPunchFace the benefit of the doubt and say he was in shock following the RTA he was involved in. Given he was in a car travelling in the opposite direction – and therefore not being delayed by the orange tabard crew – I can't really see why he would get involved

 

[Algernon]

Did a thousand people miss appointments, schools and holidays, then? Yer man who got all punchy wasn't even on the same side of the ROAD is the protesters!

Ironically, the traffic accident that Poundland Tyson Fury was involved in (or the car he was travelling in) seemed to have caused a massive tailback too. Maybe that caused a thousand people to miss appointments, school, holiday blah, blah, blah...

As I mentioned above :
I wasn't suggesting it was anything to do with what happened. I was responding to Billy the Fish's post as a theoretical example.
I fully realise that the JSO guy could've suffered a severe injury or even death so didn't mention it specifically.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Your contribution to this thread consists of glib one liners with the intention of trolling anyone who has a contrary opinion to your own.

If you behaved like that IRL then someone would eventually twat you and you'd fully deserve it. That's the problem with social media, tedious pricks like you can get away with constant sarcasm and mockery safe in the knowledge that you'll get likes and headpats from all the other tedious pricks in the room.

ok mate

 

[jcdenton08]

You might not, but Fish-botherer certainly did:

'JSO are happy to indiscriminately target random members of the public with their protests. They have to accept that they're going to get a reaction.'

Violence was very much not the last resort in that situation. But let's give Punchy McPunchFace the benefit of the doubt and say he was in shock following the RTA he was involved in. Given he was in a car travelling in the opposite direction – and therefore not being delayed by the orange tabard crew – I can't really see why he would get involved

I am not going to argue his point. Some people are quick to anger, especially when driving, but it doesn’t excuse violence.

The point I was making was a general one; if one puts oneself in a situation where violence is a realistic possible outcome, then eventually it will happen. Not endorsing, simply stating the facts of life.

 

[jessiejames]

They’re in central London, why do they even have cars?

Are you not allowed cars in central London.?

 

[el punal]

I don’t think the person “had it coming” as I don’t like violence and think it’s an absolute last resort. But then I am also a realist and recognise that if I was doing something specifically to make other people take notice, and get angry, a very possible outcome is violence towards me.

Which is the start of JSO backlash. Like it or not there will be some hotheads out there who will take it further than just dragging protesters off the road. It seems that these JSO protesters have got a lemming-like approach to the abuse both verbal and physical. Surely someone in their organisation will say enough is enough we can’t risk our supporters getting battered anytime soon. God help them if they try to disrupt any football matches in the forthcoming season - football fans are hardly the most forgiving or accommodating members of society when it comes to being messed around and I would hate to think what the consequences would be for JSO protesters if they try it on with the ‘beautiful game’.

 

[pb21]

Like it or not there will be some hotheads out there who will take it further than just dragging protesters off the road.

What, like punching someone to the floor and kicking them in the head?

People have put themselves in harms way in the past in the name of protest. It may well be the case that some of the JSO lot have a similar degree of conviction and are willing to do the same.

 

[brightn'ove]

It doesn't matter what the situation is, kicking somebody on the ground in the head is potentially lethal. That is GBH at the very minimum.

 

[Stat Brother]

It doesn't matter what the situation is, kicking somebody on the ground in the head is potentially lethal. That is GBH at the very minimum.

Should have driven over him - suspended sentence and 6 points.

 

[hart's shirt]

Might be worth some legal clarity on potential sentences for any arrested and charged, both protesters and those reacting in situations like today.

The aim isn't to argue the relative fairness or otherwise of sentences here, but rather to explain the potential implications for the different actions.

Apologies for the long read, but ignorantia juris non excusat ("ignorance of the law excuses not") applies as ever.

Thus if it dissuades anyone on NSC from the possibility of facing any legal issues as detailed below, then it'll have been worth posting and reading.


Protesters - Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (Public Order Act 2023)

"This measure will allow courts to place prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary to prevent someone from causing serious disruption. It must be necessary to impose the SDPO for a specified purpose including preventing the individual from committing another protest related offence.

An SDPO on conviction may only be imposed when an individual, aged 18 or over, convicted of a protest related offence, has on a previous occasion within the relevant time period:

1. committed another protest related offence for which the individual was convicted, or

2. committed a protest related breach of an injunction for which the individual was found in contempt of court

The protest related offence for which the individual was convicted, and the previous offence or breach must relate to different protests or have taken place on different days.

Additionally, a court may only impose an SDPO on application by police where the court is satisfied that an individual over the age of 18 on at least two occasions in the relevant period has:

1. been convicted of a protest related offence, or
2. committed a protest related breach of an injunction for which the individual was found in contempt of court

The two occasions must relate to different protests or have taken place on different days.

For all these circumstances, the relevant period for consideration of convictions or behaviour will be five years prior to the day an SDPO is imposed. However, a court will only be able to look back to a person’s 16th birthday.

Prohibitions or requirements imposed on a person given an SDPO may include prohibiting an individual from being in a particular place, being with particular people, having particular articles in their possession and using the internet to facilitate or encourage person to commit a protest related offence. Breach of an SDPO without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...arching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet


Those reacting - Assault (Common, Actual Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm)

"Assault covers a range of actions, from using threatening words to a severe physical attack that leaves the victim permanently disabled.

Offences of assault fall under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

There are three basic types of assault offence:

• common assault
• actual bodily harm (ABH)
• grievous bodily harm (GBH)/ wounding

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.

Actual bodily harm (ABH) means the assault has caused some hurt or injury to the victim. Physical injury does not need to be serious or permanent but must be more than “trifling” or “transient”, which means it must at least cause minor injuries or pain or discomfort. Psychological harm can also be covered by this offence, but this must be more than just fear or anxiety.

Grievous bodily harm (GBH) means the assault has caused serious physical harm. It does not have to be permanent or dangerous. For example, a broken bone would amount to GBH – in some cases a broken bone might lead to permanent disability but, in others, it might heal without leaving any long-term effects. GBH can also include psychiatric injury or someone passing on an infection, for example through sexual activity.

Wounding requires that the victim’s skin is broken, either on their body or their inner skin (for example, inside their lip) but it does not include the rupture of blood vessels so, if the injury is just bruising, that would not amount to wounding. The injuries involved in a wounding can be less serious than those in GBH.

The GBH or wounding must be caused either with an intent to cause some injury or with knowledge that injury was likely. If it was committed with intent to cause GBH or wounding then the offence is more serious. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment.

The offence is also more serious if the victim of the assault is an emergency worker. This covers police, prison officers, custody officers, fire service personnel, search and rescue services and paramedics.

Parliament sets the maximum (and sometimes minimum) penalty for any offence. When deciding the appropriate sentence, the court must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

Sentencing for assault depends on the offence type.

Common assault:

• the maximum sentence is six months’ custody
• if the assault is against an emergency worker, the maximum sentence is one year’s custody
• if the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years’ custody

Actual bodily harm:

• the maximum sentence is five years’ custody
• if the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is seven years’ custody

Grievous bodily harm or wounding:

• the maximum sentence is five years’ custody
• if the assault is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is seven years’ custody
• if the assault was committed with intent to cause GBH/wounding then the maximum sentence is life imprisonment

Sentences are worked out by assessing harm and culpability.

Harm is an assessment of the damage caused to the victim by the assault. It considers how injured the victim was and whether the assault was sustained or repeated.

Culpability is a measure of how responsible the offender was in the assault. It considers whether the assault was premeditated or motivated by things like the victim’s race, disability, sexual/gender identity.

Factors increasing the severity of the sentence may include:

• use of a weapon
• targeting a vulnerable victim
• the assault was committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• the assault involved an abuse of power or took advantage of a position of trust

Factors decreasing the severity of the sentence may include:

• the assault consisted only of a single blow
• the assault was an isolated incident
• the offender:
  • has shown remorse
  • is of good character
  • has a serious medical condition
  • lacks maturity, or has a mental disorder or learning disability
  • is the sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

If the defendant pleads guilty, they will receive a reduced sentence."

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/#:~:text=Sentencing%20for%20assault%20depends%20on,sentence%20is%20one%20year's%20custody

 

[pastafarian]

JSO protesting government at the ministry of energy this morning. This is exactly what people suggest they should be doing.

Dont recall anyone suggesting JSO should resort to property vandalism instead of causing traffic jams and disrupting events.

 

[A1X]

Are you not allowed cars in central London.?

Not what I said, I questioned why they’d need one.

 

[jessiejames]

Delete

 

[jessiejames]

Not what I said, I questioned why they’d need one.

Maybe they have places to goor work outside London

 

[worthingseagull123]

They’re in central London, why do they even have cars?

Because they have decided it is necessary for their journey.

I am driving into London tomorrow from Worthing. Is that ok?

 

[el punal]

What, like punching someone to the floor and kicking them in the head?

People have put themselves in harms way in the past in the name of protest. It may well be the case that some of the JSO lot have a similar degree of conviction and are willing to do the same.

Exactly what I mean. I’m not condoning violence I’m merely of the opinion that some people will resort to it as a means of venting their anger and frustration. JSO’s tactics in disrupting people’s everyday lives will trigger that reaction.

 

[willalbion]

Equally old protester…. What amazes me is the protester seems surprised at the end to get that sort of reaction from a member of the public

Should have driven over him - suspended sentence and 6 points.

Should OF

 

[chickens]

Exactly what I mean. I’m not condoning violence I’m merely of the opinion that some people will resort to it as a means of venting their anger and frustration. JSO’s tactics in disrupting people’s everyday lives will trigger that reaction.

Opposing JSO is opposing our continued existence on Earth with us having no viable alternative.

Now it won’t affect any of us, we’ll be dead anyway, but anyone with kids, or with nieces/nephews, or even with mates who have children should really be giving their heads a good hard wobble if they think JSO are the enemy.

JSO is trying to keep this planet human habitable against the almost endless resource of the fossil fuel industry, which will continue to take the money now, and worry about the future when it arrives.

 

[A1X]

Because they have decided it is necessary for their journey.

I am driving into London tomorrow from Worthing. Is that ok?

Train’s easier to get to central London. Happy to help.