Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[lifted*fox]

so to be clear - you think putting 3 ordinary men who took a non-violent stand against fracking - a practice detrimental to the long-term health / existence of the planet - in prison; at the cost of the tax-payer for 15+ months is the right thing to do?

 

a sentence that basically sends out the message that the government has made it's mind up that it's going to push forward with harmful practises for nothing other than greed and that should anyone dare speak out or stand against it they will be silenced, shut-down and put in prison? 

 

what do ordinary people like you get from siding with the state on something like that? in my opinion it's akin to literally laying down and letting the man walk all over you. and for what? you get to die and say you lived your entire life by the book? 

[lifted*fox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In an ideal world everyone would realise what an environmental headache fracking is and actually have some regard for the future rather than wanting to get a quick buck now...

 

that's conservatives for you. this tory government approving fracking just about sums them up tbh. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In an ideal world everyone would realise what an environmental headache fracking is and actually have some regard for the future rather than wanting to get a quick buck now...however right now the law is indeed pretty clear on that score. I just hope that others won't have to be jailed before such protests are rendered unnecessary

 

However, I don't like the idea that the law is infallible - it's written and codified by human opinion, after all. A lot of very nasty things done in the past were "legal" in the eyes of the legislature carrying them out.

You are talking like the debate on fracking is signed and sealed. It's still very open as to whether and how much damage it can cause and whether it could even be beneficial to the environment as an alternate supply.

 

But that isn't the point here anyway.

 

I'm sure people feel strongly about lots of things but as the law stands you can't disrupt people going about their business legally and expect to have no consequences for that.

 

Believe me I'd love to stop a lot of things happening as well that are legal, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm so right that I'm allowed go disrupt it because I don't like it.

[Footballwipe]

Change them from Greenpeace activists to Tommy Robinson and his vile crew climbing on lorries in a 100hr protest over something to do with their racist views and breaking the same laws and with EXACTLY the same actions these guys did.

 

It once again highlights both the extreme left and extreme right's hypocrisy over laws. You get what you deserve until it's you that's suffering; that's when the law is wrong. Mass protests must commence. I'd have more respect if the people behind this protest came out and said it was worth it for the cause, not protesting at a jail sentence for their breaking of the law.

 

Baffling yet unsurprising. 

[lifted*fox]

one has a history of inciting racial hatred and a plethora of previous convictions and the other is a soil scientist from Sheffield protesting for the well-being of the planet. 

[Innovindil]

53 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

so to be clear - you think putting 3 ordinary men who took a non-violent stand against fracking - a practice detrimental to the long-term health / existence of the planet - in prison; at the cost of the tax-payer for 15+ months is the right thing to do?

 

a sentence that basically sends out the message that the government has made it's mind up that it's going to push forward with harmful practises for nothing other than greed and that should anyone dare speak out or stand against it they will be silenced, shut-down and put in prison? 

 

what do ordinary people like you get from siding with the state on something like that? in my opinion it's akin to literally laying down and letting the man walk all over you. and for what? you get to die and say you lived your entire life by the book? 

I think putting 3 people who damaged a business, against the law, simply because of their own personal beliefs in prison at her majesty's pleasure is the right thing to do, indeed. 

 

You don't get to break the law without consequence simply because you believe you are acting in the "greater good". That is not how this country works.

 

Edit: additionally on the whole "lived your entire life by the book" thing. I break the law every week, difference being is when/if I ever get caught by "da evil man" I'll accept whatever punishment is required by law, not expect to be let off because I should get to do what I want. 

Edited 27 September 2018 by Innovindil

[lifted*fox]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Edit: additionally on the whole "lived your entire life by the book" thing. I break the law every week, difference being is when/if I ever get caught by "da evil man" I'll accept whatever punishment is required by law, not expect to be let off because I should get to do what I want. 

 

I'll wager that your weekly breaking of the law isn't peacefully protesting against environmentally damaging practises though, is it. 

 

Rapists, murderers, violent criminals - all rightly go to prison. Scientists protesting peacefully against harmful energy extraction - FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET - should not. Give them community service, suspend the sentence, whatever. Putting them in a ****ing concrete cell for 15 months is not a fit punishment for the 'crime' - if you can call it that. 

 

Where's the ****ing humanity here? They cost a fracking business money - so ****ing what. A drop in the ocean, I'm sure. 

 

We're talking about the future of the planet. We're talking about green land for your kids to play on. We're talking about meeting climate change requirements that need to be met NOW so that the planet doesn't flood / overheat and go into total meltdown in the next few hundred years. It's irreversible SOON. 

 

And you want to throw people in prison who are fighting for that because they cost a business money? Come on, FFS. 

 

I do not understand wtf is wrong with people. 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

I'll wager that your weekly breaking of the law isn't peacefully protesting against environmentally damaging practises though, is it. 

 

Rapists, murderers, violent criminals - all rightly go to prison. Scientists protesting peacefully against harmful energy extraction - FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET - should not. Give them community service, suspend the sentence, whatever. Putting them in a ****ing concrete cell for 15 months is not a fit punishment for the 'crime' - if you can call it that. 

 

Where's the ****ing humanity here? They cost a fracking business money - so ****ing what. A drop in the ocean, I'm sure. 

 

We're talking about the future of the planet. We're talking about green land for your kids to play on. We're talking about meeting climate change requirements that need to be met NOW so that the planet doesn't flood / overheat and go into total meltdown in the next few hundred years. It's irreversible SOON. 

 

And you want to throw people in prison who are fighting for that because they cost a business money? Come on, FFS. 

 

I do not understand wtf is wrong with people. 

Who are fighting for that illegally*

 

You keep missing this point. Even though it's the only one I've made. 

 

I agree with you that fracking is potentially damaging. That does not however cloud the rule of law. You break it, you accept the consequences. That's it. That's all there is to it. You don't get to decide that this damage to this business is okay. 

[lifted*fox]

Mate, look - I'm not saying it's OK to break the law without consequence. I'm saying that in this case I don't believe the punishment fits the crime - especially as the reason for protest is SO important. Everything else ceases to exist with the planet, including laws. 

 

You chose not to care about history earlier but I'm going to emphasise it again. Many, many, MANY unjust laws, practises, issues throughout history have had to have been fought with 'illegal' measure to bring about change for the good of humanity. Not all laws are good, not all laws are made with your benefit in mind. Some laws have seen innocent people locked up even killed. 

 

I am willing to overlook the breaking of a law by my fellow citizens, the man next to me on the street - if it means that unethical and harmful practices are kept in the limelight and even potentially stopped because of it. I value the planet and its future more than creating the illusion that no law must be broken only for the benefit of big business and government. 

 

To put in perspective - the government and the fracking company don't care about you. The people protesting - they do. They care enough about humanity to risk going to prison for it. They are the ones you should be siding with, irrespective of breaking the law or not. 

 

 

[Milo]

9 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Mate, look - I'm not saying it's OK to break the law without consequence. I'm saying that in this case I don't believe the punishment fits the crime - especially as the reason for protest is SO important. Everything else ceases to exist with the planet, including laws. 

 

You chose not to care about history earlier but I'm going to emphasise it again. Many, many, MANY unjust laws, practises, issues throughout history have had to have been fought with 'illegal' measure to bring about change for the good of humanity. Not all laws are good, not all laws are made with your benefit in mind. Some laws have seen innocent people locked up even killed. 

 

I am willing to overlook the breaking of a law by my fellow citizens, the man next to me on the street - if it means that unethical and harmful practices are kept in the limelight and even potentially stopped because of it. I value the planet and its future more than creating the illusion that no law must be broken only for the benefit of big business and government. 

 

To put in perspective - the government and the fracking company don't care about you. The people protesting - they do. They care enough about humanity to risk going to prison for it. They are the ones you should be siding with, irrespective of breaking the law or not. 

 

 

I don't particularly agree with you - but you put that quite well 

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Mate, look - I'm not saying it's OK to break the law without consequence. I'm saying that in this case I don't believe the punishment fits the crime - especially as the reason for protest is SO important. Everything else ceases to exist with the planet, including laws. 

 

You chose not to care about history earlier but I'm going to emphasise it again. Many, many, MANY unjust laws, practises, issues throughout history have had to have been fought with 'illegal' measure to bring about change for the good of humanity. Not all laws are good, not all laws are made with your benefit in mind. Some laws have seen innocent people locked up even killed. 

 

I am willing to overlook the breaking of a law by my fellow citizens, the man next to me on the street - if it means that unethical and harmful practices are kept in the limelight and even potentially stopped because of it. I value the planet and its future more than creating the illusion that no law must be broken only for the benefit of big business and government. 

 

To put in perspective - the government and the fracking company don't care about you. The people protesting - they do. They care enough about humanity to risk going to prison for it. They are the ones you should be siding with, irrespective of breaking the law or not. 

 

 

Of course not, and I have never said such. In fact, I've specifically said I break the law every week. It's not the point.

 

You don't believe this punishment fits this crime, and that's fine, but the judge disagrees. At the end of the day, it's their job to dish out a punishment which he or she believes will reduce the risk of the criminal in question re-offending. You've stated in this same post that these people care enough to risk going to prison for it. Do you really believe that a suspended sentence or some community service will deter them from breaking the law again?

 

We each personally can't be in charge of what we deem to be the greater good, we just can't. If i shut down an amazon warehouse for days, risking peoples jobs and livelihoods, do I just get to say "greater good" and get away with it? Of course not. If I bomb labour HQ, no one's hurt, but losing the building damages their chances of getting into office, do I get to say "greater good" and get away with it? Of course not. We don't get to draw the line where the law matters and when it doesn't. Otherwise, we stop being a democracy and start becoming a ragtag collection of anarchists. 

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I don't particularly agree with you - but you put that quite well 

 

Thanks. I try. It's not easy trying to make some of the points I try to make considering it feels like swimming upstream a lot of the time. I don't always cover myself in glory but hey ho, not many on here do tbf. 

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

You don't believe this punishment fits this crime, and that's fine, but the judge disagrees. At the end of the day, it's their job to dish out a punishment which he or she believes will reduce the risk of the criminal in question re-offending. You've stated in this same post that these people care enough to risk going to prison for it. Do you really believe that a suspended sentence or some community service will deter them from breaking the law again?

 

And you know what? I don't think the sentence is to deter these people from doing it again - it's to deter anyone else who thinks they might stand up against fracking at any point from doing so; giving the government a trouble free and easy path to push on with it despite everyone else opposing it. 

 

It might be all a bit tin foil hat but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the judge was being leant on by the government to dish out a heavy sentence. The conservatives and the fracking companies are the only ones who want it to go ahead and its big, big money. Of course they're going to steam-roll anyone that opposes it. 

 

Perhaps we've been discussing this in the wrong way. 

 

In my own ethical opinion they've done the right thing. The action is peaceful and just. I don't think the sentence is fair but I agree that if they broke the law then some punishment must exist. I personally feel a fine or short community service is befitting of a non-violent protest held for good cause. 

 

In your opinion, from a law perspective they did the wrong thing, OK black/white fair enough. BUT answer me this - do you agree with the sentiment of their actions? You agree that the planet is more important in this instance, yes? And surely you can also agree - that taking into account these are upstanding citizens, with jobs, etc. That 15 months in a cell is way of over the top as a personal deterrent and they are falling foul of a message being sent out to anyone else who might oppose it? 

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

And you know what? I don't think the sentence is to deter these people from doing it again - it's to deter anyone else who thinks they might stand up against fracking at any point from doing so; giving the government a trouble free and easy path to push on with it despite everyone else opposing it. 

 

It might be all a bit tin foil hat but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the judge was being leant on by the government to dish out a heavy sentence. The conservatives and the fracking companies are the only ones who want it to go ahead and its big, big money. Of course they're going to steam-roll anyone that opposes it. 

 

Perhaps we've been discussing this in the wrong way. 

 

In my own ethical opinion they've done the right thing. The action is peaceful and just. I don't think the sentence is fair but I agree that if they broke the law then some punishment must exist. I personally feel a fine or short community service is befitting of a non-violent protest held for good cause. 

 

In your opinion, from a law perspective they did the wrong thing, OK black/white fair enough. BUT answer me this - do you agree with the sentiment of their actions? You agree that the planet is more important in this instance, yes? And surely you can also agree - that taking into account these are upstanding citizens, with jobs, etc. That 15 months in a cell is way of over the top as a personal deterrent and they are falling foul of a message being sent out to anyone else who might oppose it? 

Honestly, I don't know. I don't agree with their actions, although I would say I lean towards being in support of their cause. As for punishment, not really possible to speculate is it, I have no idea what the cost would be for a few days worth of disruption. I don't have enough tinfoil to think that the punishment is in relation to "the man", they'll be out on good behavior in 7/8 months, that to me probably signals just the right amount of personal deterrent. But I guess the only way to know for sure is to see if they do it again when they get out.

 

 

[lifted*fox]

 

[Guest MattP]

Well done Labour, it's almost like the voters don't want illegal strikes and Palestinian flags.

 

[Guest MattP]

Some evidence of the above tonight as well....

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

You are talking like the debate on fracking is signed and sealed. It's still very open as to whether and how much damage it can cause and whether it could even be beneficial to the environment as an alternate supply.

 

But that isn't the point here anyway.

 

I'm sure people feel strongly about lots of things but as the law stands you can't disrupt people going about their business legally and expect to have no consequences for that.

 

Believe me I'd love to stop a lot of things happening as well that are legal, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm so right that I'm allowed go disrupt it because I don't like it.

2

I think that it's signed and sealed from the perspective of there being much better alternatives for energy generation available in terms of output and reduced environmental damage. Yes, there's still some questions to be answered about exactly how much damage the process does (probably less than crude oil extraction dependent on location and less than coal too, so it's only more beneficial to the environment relative to those two) but when you have "single cost" methods like solar panels and wind turbines becoming ever more efficient and Generation III/IV fission reactors coming onstream, I'd much rather be pushing for those in the future than continuing to rely on any coal, oil, or gas for energy generation. Let's not live in the past when the future can be cleaner.

 

WRT the actual case here itself, inno and lifted have covered it pretty well.

[Guest MattP]

Preach it Rod!

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Well done Labour, it's almost like the voters don't want illegal strikes and Palestinian flags.

 

If they carry on this path they will be absolutely decimated in the North and Midlands, their traditional core areas.

 

You ask the average person in Stoke-on-Trent about Palestine and they quite rightly couldn't give a flying. Quite what a major British Political party is doing waving them at a conference I have absolutely no idea. 

[Finnegan]

16 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

Change them from Greenpeace activists to Tommy Robinson and his vile crew climbing on lorries in a 100hr protest over something to do with their racist views and breaking the same laws and with EXACTLY the same actions these guys did.

 

It once again highlights both the extreme left and extreme right's hypocrisy over laws. You get what you deserve until it's you that's suffering; that's when the law is wrong. Mass protests must commence. I'd have more respect if the people behind this protest came out and said it was worth it for the cause, not protesting at a jail sentence for their breaking of the law.

 

Baffling yet unsurprising. 

 

Greenpeace isn't really about left and right, although most probably are firmly left wing, above all else its environmentalist. 

 

But either way, extremists with almost any ideology are dangerous twats. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

If they carry on this path they will be absolutely decimated in the North and Midlands, their traditional core areas.

 

You ask the average person in Stoke-on-Trent about Palestine and they quite rightly couldn't give a flying. Quite what a major British Political party is doing waving them at a conference I have absolutely no idea. 

You would assume so, but don't underestimate how little voters know when it comes to polling day (Labour voters even more so as they tend to follow politics less closely than Tory voters)

 

I mean nearly half haven't even heard of the shadow chancellor - .https://www.joe.co.uk/politics/labour-voters-havent-heard-john-mcdonnell-201366
 

Quote

 

47 per cent of Labour voters say they 'have not heard of' shadow chancellor of the exchequer John McDonnell.

A YouGov poll for The Times revealed that many of the party's voters do not recognise the names of their senior politicians. 46 per cent said they have not heard of Tom Watson, 56 per cent responded had the same response to Keir Starmer, 48 per cent to Shami Chakrabarti and 80 per cent to Barry Gardiner.

The same percentage of voters said they had heard of McDonnell as hadn't - 47 per cent.

 

That said, I do wish I was in that 52% that had never heard of that noxious hypocrite Chakrabarti.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

(Labour voters even more so as they tend to follow politics less closely than Tory voters)

Source for clarity, though I realise demographic plays a big part of this as well.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Source for clarity, though I realise demographic plays a big part of this as well.

 

Have you got any equivalent data showing which have more political knowledge, Brexiteers or Remainers, Matt?  

 

I'd expect some shifts in the Lab-Con knowledge data over coming years. Now that more middle-class people vote Labour and more working-class vote Tory, presumably the knowledgeability ratings will soon be reversed? 

 

In all seriousness, here's another stat: Foxes Talk currently has 22,724 members (just checked). How many ever post on the Politics thread? About 20? So, about 0.1%?

Granted, a lot will be extinct/lurker accounts, a lot of people are too busy to post but might have an interest in politics etc. Even so, only a small minority have much interest.

 

That's why, for example, I'd expect a lot of the reaction to Brexit, however it pans out, to only occur after events start clearly affecting people's real lives (if they do).

Most people have little knowledge or interest in politics until it affects them. A majority (though not a large majority) will have some opinions, often based on inherited family preferences or the opinions of those around them, but politics is mainly seen as something remote, confusing, even dishonest - and with little connection to real life....until it affects real lives.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Have you got any equivalent data showing which have more political knowledge, Brexiteers or Remainers, Matt?  

 

I'd expect some shifts in the Lab-Con knowledge data over coming years. Now that more middle-class people vote Labour and more working-class vote Tory, presumably the knowledgeability ratings will soon be reversed? 

 

In all seriousness, here's another stat: Foxes Talk currently has 22,724 members (just checked). How many ever post on the Politics thread? About 20? So, about 0.1%?

Granted, a lot will be extinct/lurker accounts, a lot of people are too busy to post but might have an interest in politics etc. Even so, only a small minority have much interest.

 

That's why, for example, I'd expect a lot of the reaction to Brexit, however it pans out, to only occur after events start clearly affecting people's real lives (if they do).

Most people have little knowledge or interest in politics until it affects them. A majority (though not a large majority) will have some opinions, often based on inherited family preferences or the opinions of those around them, but politics is mainly seen as something remote, confusing, even dishonest - and with little connection to real life....until it affects real lives.

No, I'd like to see some though, part of me thinks it would be similar to that given the old folks are mainly Brexit and All the Young Dudes! (carry the newsss) are Remain but adding in the demographic of the richest areas voting to stay and the poorest voting to leave in England it would probably balance out a bit.

It's not anything to get carried away about anyway, older people, who at the minute are in the main Conservatives, will always be more likely to take more interest as they have much more time to do so. Political knowledge isn't really down to education or class either, I'd imagine among the "educated" Labour would have a huge lead now, again due to demographics as so many younger people have gone to university whereas only a small percentage of the elderdy did.
 

For what it's worth at this current time I'm pretty certain most Tory voters wouldn't know who Gavin Williamson is and he holds one of the great offices of state.

Edited 28 September 2018 by MattP