Insulate Br protesters jailed for mentioning climate change

[Super Sonic]

David Nixon, Amy Pritchard and Giovanni Lewis have been jailed for contempt of court for mentioning climate change as mitigation in three separate trials.

[Biggy Stardust]

One has to at least suspect that's not the full story.

[Gecko1978]

I would assume they mentioned it when it was not their turn to talk or when asked a question which the answer was not "because of climate" etc

[dingg]

Old news, they are out now, wonder if it worked as a deterrent

[Super Sonic]

Biggy Stardust said:

One has to at least suspect that's not the full story.

Look at the story

[Super Sonic]

Gecko1978 said:

I would assume they mentioned it when it was not their turn to talk or when asked a question which the answer was not "because of climate" etc

Look at the story.

[captain_cynic]

Biggy Stardust said:

One has to at least suspect that's not the full story.

That's an understatement

No links and all the OP can say is "look at the story"... What story? The one he made up.

However I think this crossed my news feed this morning and some protestors were actually jailed for obstructing traffic and causing a public nuisance.

Obviously the judge felt that lesser penalties would not dissuade them from doing the same thing again.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Biggy Stardust said:

One has to at least suspect that's not the full story.

Indeed.

[Challo]

Super Sonic said:

David Nixon, Amy Pritchard and Giovanni Lewis have been jailed for contempt of court for mentioning climate change as mitigation in three separate trials.

No. They where sent to jail for contempt of court.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/0...

[Biggy Stardust]

Challo said:

No. They where sent to jail for contempt of court.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/0...

Given the option to apologise but gave lip instead. Zero sympathy.

[Super Sonic]

captain_cynic said:

That's an understatement

No links and all the OP can say is "look at the story"... What story? The one he made up.

However I think this crossed my news feed this morning and some protestors were actually jailed for obstructing traffic and causing a public nuisance.

Obviously the judge felt that lesser penalties would not dissuade them from doing the same thing again.

They were jailed for contempt of court. It crossed your news feed so why the need for a link. Nixon was jailed for public nuisance, the other two, the juries failed to reach verdicts. You're the one making up a story.

[Challo]

Super Sonic said:

captain_cynic said:

That's an understatement

No links and all the OP can say is "look at the story"... What story? The one he made up.

However I think this crossed my news feed this morning and some protestors were actually jailed for obstructing traffic and causing a public nuisance.

Obviously the judge felt that lesser penalties would not dissuade them from doing the same thing again.

They were jailed for contempt of court. It crossed your news feed so why the need for a link. Nixon was jailed for public nuisance, the other two, the juries failed to reach verdicts. You're the one making up a story.

He is right in the fact you created the thread, no link and then just told people to look at the story. The link i provided showed that he was jailed for contempt of caught because the judge told him not to mention climate change and he still did.

So what's your thoughts on this story?

[bitchstewie]

Challo said:

No. They where sent to jail for contempt of court.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/0...

Am I being slightly dense or how can a judge tell someone not to say that something was one of their motivations for doing something?

[Super Sonic]

They mentioned climate change as mitigation as to why there protests went to the extremes that they did. The judge said that if they mentioned climate change they would be held in contempt of court. This denies them any mitigation and so misleads the jury. The government are trying to stop people protesting, and the courts are backing the government. You may not agree with the protesters but what about their right to protest?

[captain_cynic]

bhstewie said:

Challo said:

No. They where sent to jail for contempt of court.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/0...

Am I being slightly dense or how can a judge tell someone not to say that something was one of their motivations for doing something?

Likely because it was already known.

Reading the article, it sounds like he went on a bit of a tirade after the judge warned him not to. Even after that, the judge offered him two chances to apologise, he refused. Play silly games in court, win silly prizes in prison. Not the GOTCHA that the OP wanted, quite the opposite really, a bit of a damp squib.

BTW, slightly related, here is the article that crossed my feed this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/3...

[Teppic]

bhstewie said:

Challo said:

No. They where sent to jail for contempt of court.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/0...

Am I being slightly dense or how can a judge tell someone not to say that something was one of their motivations for doing something?

Probaby the Judge wanting them to explain why they felt that blocking a road was their only course of action as opposed to, say, standing at the side of the road waving banners and placards that said "Careful now" and "Down with this sort of thing"?

"Because climate change" is not an excuse when there are other forms of protest available.

[Roderick Spode]

Super Sonic said:

The judge said that if they mentioned climate change they would be held in contempt of court.

So, jailed for Contempt of Court after clear guidance from the judge, not "for mentioning climate change" as you say in your thread title.

That isn't on that statute books, no matter how hard you look for it, or wish it to be so.

[Super Sonic]

captain_cynic said:

Likely because it was already known.

Reading the article, it sounds like he went on a bit of a tirade after the judge warned him not to. Even after that, the judge offered him two chances to apologise, he refused. Play silly games in court, win silly prizes in prison. Not the GOTCHA that the OP wanted, quite the opposite really, a bit of a damp squib.

BTW, slightly related, here is the article that crossed my feed this morning:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/3...

It may have been already known, but the jury are required to reach their verdict on the evidence presented in court, not what they may have seen in msm. The judge denied them the chance to plead mitigation. The article you have linked is only slightly related and doesn't refer to anyone I referred to in my op, so not really relevant, so 'not gotcha, damp squib' meh

[Super Sonic]

said:

They consider climate change as there mitigation. Not sure what the 'not on statute books' refers to.
ETA, reply to Roderick Spode!

[Challo]

Super Sonic said:

They mentioned climate change as mitigation as to why there protests went to the extremes that they did. The judge said that if they mentioned climate change they would be held in contempt of court. This denies them any mitigation and so misleads the jury. The government are trying to stop people protesting, and the courts are backing the government. You may not agree with the protesters but what about their right to protest?

They made a clear and conscious decision to block the road, and therefore mentioning climate change is not a mitigating factor.