You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
"barely mentioned climate change in their manifesto" was the claim... but it was front and centre of the manifesto and couldn't be missed by anyone even glancing at it... that their response and methods do not match you particular single minded political focus is neither here no there.
The biggest change in UK policy towards oil and gas was prompted at the ballot box earlier this month. I'm unsure whether the acts of protest have helped or hindered, accelerated or delayed, the necessary steps we need to take towards dropping fossil fuel use... but whether genius or misguided folly, the protests should not be resulting in these sentences.
there were plenty of cases of ambulances not being able to get through.
Provide one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyAGOPiino
In twenty or thirty years we’ll look back on the Extinction Rebellion people as martyrs in the same way we look at the Suffragettes. They’re not out there protesting for the sake of it, but for your kids future.
Their way of going about it may not always be the most appropriate, but the message sure is.
Where's the like button when you need it.
irc - I wonder if in 20 years time (if you are still alive - I suspect you are of an age so this might not be a given) you might cringe at your thread title and opinions. I don't know if you have grand kids, but I fear they might cringe even if you don't. And it's their world long term. Anyway, well done you for wishing a non violent protester, campaigning for your grand kids to have a more hopeful future, incarceration.
Roger Hallam, the guy with the longest sentence; I'm glad he says he's moved on in terms of protesting methodology. Not because I think what he did was morally wrong, but because we need to win over the likes of the OP and IR/JSO's methods was more likely to give the gammons even more reliance on their hypertension tablets than change their voting philosophy or lifestyle choices. But 5 years is a disgrace. It looks like the judge was very thin skinned. Hallam got under their skin, got arrested a handful of times during the trial so it was never going to go well at sentencing. I hope he and the rest of them can use their time in prison positively for progress.
I agree that the sentences are very high (although, they’ll only serve 50% of it behind bars), but we weren’t at the court and didn’t hear the evidence presented
The UN Raporteur was and described it as an unfair trial and in breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
Additionally the judge referred to climate change as an opinion. The honourable gentleman erred as it is regarded as scientific consensus. I would suggest that he is too remote from modern life and thus incompetent for presiding over that particular trial.
They were expressly forbidden by the judge to talk about climate change. In these sorts of cases, that’s not uncommon for there to be restrictions on this sort of evidence (mostly a time thing) but this judge took a pretty hard line on it.
If you can't talk about the reasons why you did something, what's the point of a trial?
"Mr X, you stand accused of assault."
"He was on fire, I was trying to put it out."
"No mitigation will be heard - it's only your opinion that he was on fire, five years for trying to justify your actions. "
Positively Orwellian.
The Green parties got 7% of the vote at the election so 93% don't think Green issues are their number 1 priority.
Protest all you want but if you break the law then accept the consequences.
PS for whoever asked up thread I fully expect to still be here in 25 years time.
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
If you can’t talk about the reasons why you did something, what’s the point of a trial?
It's not an unreasonable question. There's a good write up about the goings-on at the trail here. I think in most cases they restrict it to stop days and days of experts and so on, and accept that the evidence is real. In this case, as the protestors were mostly representing themselves, I think the judge probably wanted to stop them grandstanding in the dock. As it was I think he gave them some latitude, but these folks are seasoned protestors, they're not going to just roll over.
Trial started on the wrong foot, and got steadily more farcical. It's probs. due a re-trail at some point.
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
Either you did actively revel in the misfortunes of others, or you're baiting other posters on STW.
Neither reflect well on you.
PS for whoever asked up thread I fully expect to still be here in 25 years time.
Well, god admires positive thinkers. So well done you.
Society however, has to tolerate its ball and chains. And say what you like about our current ball and chains, they are bloody good at voting. Not so hot on science and thinking beyond their personal immediate needs; but no one is better at voting. And incontinence pants. They carry those off with panache. I wonder if they make environmentally friendly incontinence pants - don't suppose there's much of a demand.
do they have right to cause the disruption (which they planned)
This is a fair charge / point. So, 'disruption'. In the same way do those who cause disproportionate CO2 output have a right to cause far greater disruption to things that actually matter? I mean, I get held up, stuck in my car on a road for a couple of hours. So what, happens all the time in transport of all types (apart from my bike). Flooding my home is a bit more disruptive and the causal link is there.
Would be interesting to hear what the newly-appointed Prisons Minister might have to say about the sentence.
This is a good summary.
". JSO is no doubt sure of its cause, but its position is frightening. It claims, in effect, the right to immobilise the country and decide who is allowed to go where (for example, by its ‘blue light policy’ it arrogated itself the power to say that the police would be allowed to use the M25 but no-one else would). No state can allow such a corrosive policy: any private group that tries to say that citizens can only go about their lawful business with their say-so needs to be suppressed, and hard."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-fanatics-deserve-their-lengthy-jail-terms/
Roger Hallam, the guy with the longest sentence; I’m glad he says he’s moved on in terms of protesting methodology.
If you read the BBC report he seems to have forgotten that as he was actively trying to disrupt the trial and was arrested 3 times.
Sentence is disproportionate and I don't have any beef with the cause, but he sounds like a cock.
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
ircFull Member
This is a good summary.
In your opinion, my opinion would be to treat most of the verbiage in the spectator to be rather biased against green issues
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
I was wondering that about the farmers' protests in Wales. Presumably someone will have been prosecuted for deliberately blocking the traffic on the way to Cardiff in the tractors?
The Green parties got 7% of the vote at the election so 93% don’t think Green issues are their number 1 priority.
That's poor stats interpretation on your part. It's about confidence in the Greens as a government overall not how people rate the environment in terms of priorities. The Greens did better this year than in past elections which is supported by polling on the topic.
Outside of the Telegraph and Spectator or other biased media outlets (bias goes both ways) there are long-running polls that show the environment as increasingly important in people's minds -
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/36279-environment-once-again-top-three-priority-british-
June 2021, The environment is once again a top three priority for the British public
British adults are consistently ranking the environment as one of their top three ‘most important issues facing the country today ahead of Brexit, immigration, crime, and many others
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304 - pre 2019 election it was already well up there
Houns +1, donating also
had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
That's ****ing pathetic.
What did the spectator and torygraph say about the fairfuel uk protests?
That the god-given right to drive a Range Rover everywhere, while running over small animals and environmental protestors is enshrined in the Magna Carta?
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
Best make sure you never ever inconvenience anyone. As the police services in this sceptred isle know how to mission creep things like this. Driving down the wrong lane (left or right turn only) and then cutting in to go straight ahead, off to court for you being an inconvenience to the public.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
Yes it's hyperbole but remember councils regularly mis-use RIPA, parking companies flout the law on use of DVLA data. . .
I had a dram of my best malt last night to celebrate a court at last dealing firmly with eco law breakers.
I'm not sure you have enough to do.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
This. If everyone who causes delays to transport gets 5 years we're going to need a lot more prisons to hold everyone who voted for Brexit, anyone who voted Tory and the resulting underfunding of roads, railways, border posts, and of course everyone who parks their ****panzers on the double yellows because they CBA to walk 100 yards. OTOH it will make the world a much nicer place for everyone else.
Have an accident and cause large delays to traffic 5 years inside for you, you recidivist.
Apparently it's not the same. If some halfwit brings the M25 to a standstill because they didn't bother to check they had sufficient fuel in their vehicle, or they skidded their lorry, then it is just one of life's little inconvenience which no one can do much about.
But if a couple of hippies who think they are on a mission to save the planet bring the M25 to a standstill by climbing up a gantry then that's outrageous and they deserve to have the book thrown at them.
5 years is the bottom. Of the top tier of sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving.
Is this because it holds up
Outside of the Telegraph and Spectator or other biased media outlets (bias goes both ways) there are long-running polls that show the environment as increasingly important in people’s minds –
Except you are quoting a poll from 3 years ago. A more recent poll shows that it was only 5th in people's concerns overall & only 4% of voters made the environment the most important issue
I think there has undoubtedly been a backlash against green issues & I would suggest that at least part of that is because of people like JSO overreaching the issue. Let's face it, they are attempting to antagonise the very people they should be trying to win over. Culture Wars in action. I don't think society as a whole benefits from having one section of the population getting their information on climate change from the Daily Mail whilst another section attempts to force through change by disrupting people's lives. Someone up above posted about how about Fair Fuel protesters getting 5 years inside. I'd turn it around. Is it OK for a small number of activists to attempt to get their demands by bringing chaos to everyone else. It's fine if you are concerned about climate change & those concerned are environmentalists, but what about activists who decide there are too many immigarnts in the country, or people who think fuel prices are too high or there are too many cycle lanes? Essentially protests like this don't 'win' the argument, they demonstrate that they don't have enough popular support to get through the measures they want and are effectively relying on (passive aggressive) 'force' to do it. I reckon people should think very carefully about supporting these types of protests just beacuse you agree with the cause.
Don't get me wrong. I think 5 years is excessive, but the purpose of a sentence is to make sure people don't repeat the offence and to deter others. I think it will probably do that, at least in the shorter term.
This sentence didn't come from any type of democratic process it is the misuse of power by the right ring dribbling elite in the Tory party and the right wing press.
irc sounds uncannily like 'The Male Online ' from Viz
I think there has undoubtedly been a backlash against green issues
Only in the right wing press and right wing political parties. Not in the mainstream
TJ. I refer you to the opinion poll above.
This sentence didn’t come from any type of democratic process it is the misuse of power by the right ring dribbling elite in the Tory party and the right wing press.
Good to see the right wing aren't alone with the conspiracy theories, as stated many times, the judiciary are separate from politics, something that we should celebrate within the UK.
Meh self appointed middle class knobs get what was coming to them, I'm struggling to be too upset on the specifics of the case but do have an issue with the sentance in comparison to say killing a cyclist. Bit the same with the protests, let's not confuse the importance of the issue with the motivation of the protesters. Climate change is real and wreaking terrible consequences on communities across the world, often in places least able to cope. Some retired numbnut blocking the M25 isn't going to make a positive difference.
The protesters need to stop and have a long think about what they have done and the real world consequences of their actions, in the meantime we need to properly engage in climate change mitigation whilst at the same time understand a significant proportion of the population can't get their head around anything more global than their local Facebook group.
the judiciary
Enforce the law, they don’t make it.
This sentence didn’t come from any type of democratic process
I disagree with the sentence and hope it can be appealed
But... can you describe what a democratic sentencing process would be? Are you referring to FPTP putting parties in power, without a genuine majority, who then put laws in places, that the judge in this case used to deliver a sentence at the harsher end of what was available to him?
TJ. I refer you to the opinion poll above.
Which has nothing to do with a backlash at all.
Enforce the law, they don’t make it.
They don't 'enforce the law'
Which has nothing to do with a backlash at all.
In 2021 the Yougov poll indicated that the environment was one of the three most important issues to the British public. JSO were formed in 2022. In 2024 environmental issues slipped to 5th in a poll by the same company.
How successful have JSO been in developing public support for action to be taken to confront climate change?
Remember - if you stay under the bridge you dont get the jail
I think you need to understand what a backlash is.
They don’t ‘enforce the law’
apply the law then. Still dont make it
apply the law then. Still dont make it
Yes, that's the legislator that does that, the judge, who is appointed by the crown, interprets and applies the law on an individual case basis, they apply this sentence against the applicable criteria, the defendants lawyers have the ability to appeal the sentence, which will go through the judicial appeals process, none of this will involve parliament, or the PM, or the tories.
Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?
If you’re going to be a dick then you’re probably best doing it in the pub or somewhere with less impact than in front of the person who’s about to pass sentence on you, no?
If you’re not bright enough to figure that one out for yourself, I don’t think you can expect much sympathy
Binners - really?
In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted. this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.
the crime here is also NOT the protest but organising the protest. thought crime.
Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws and that they were not allowed to make the defense let alone the absurd sentance
The environment slipped this year as the tories drove the country off a cliff, immediate concerns, like vote the ****ers out will have pushed the environment down the agenda.
I voted tactically to do my bit, but under a PR system would vote green.
I for one have considered where is I'd be professionally if I took part in a demonstration on behalf only the environment.
This sentencing only makes me more militant...
disruption from climate change is in the post for the vast majority of us - JSO are highlighting it - the courts are criminalising it - imo a harsh but suspended ‘we get it but the act is bad’ would’ve been fair - 5 years for it is uncalled for and isn’t a good look for the justice system (or irc)
Uncle Jezza… thought crime?
Seriously.., get a grip.
I’m not passing comment on the cause. I’m passing comment on their behaviour once arrested, charged and put on trial.
Once on trial - which they presumably expected, given their antics/protests/whatever - they deliberately decided to behave like dicks in the courtroom despite being warned repeatedly to pack it in.
So they opted to deliberately and intentionally do a bit of courtroom grandstanding to wind up the person who was about to sentence them
Like… der!
If you’re that dense, then you deserve everything you get.
Unless the harsh sentence is what you were after in the first place
Have any of them actually commented on the sentence? I expect their happy as Larry having made themselves martyrs through their own stupidity
They’re like a really shit Taliban
In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted. this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.
The Attorney General appealed a case that used this defence, the high court upheld the appeal, which means that the judge in this case has to take that into account, so no, this judge did not decide to make it no longer available, that was done via the previous government and the high court, meaning all judges have to interpret this ruling into their cases.
yes binners - this prosecution was for a thought crime.
Check it out. “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance” Is what they were prosecuted for and the defense of "lawful excuse" was denied them
Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws
They weren't given 5 year sentences under "draconian laws" they were given those sentences partly because they ****ed about in court and had to be arrested (again).
I agree that the judges' rule that they couldn't mention climate change was harsh, but it's not in of itself unusual to restrict those kinds of evidence submissions, had they engaged barristers on their behalf they could've probably successfully argued against it. Instead they chose civil disobedience (again), which given how much latitude judges in the UK have in their own courts [when sentencing] wasn't the smartest move ever, or couldn't have come as massive surprise either
So all the breathless headlines saying they got 5 years for protesting and so forth are incorrect (no surprise there) agendas make for more exciting reading than the actuality.
Good point Argee. It wasn't the judges decision as such
Check it out. “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”
So did they actually plan it or were they just casually thinking about planning it? Mulling it over in their heads?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that only one of those things would result in a conviction
Or are you suggesting that if a group of Jihadist (or for balance far right) terrorists were arrested while only at the planning stage of blowing lots of people up, then they shouldn’t be tried as this essentially only amounts to a ‘thought crime’?
It's not dense behaviour, it's logical and consistent behaviour. If you put yourself in a position of multifaceted risk by blocking the M25 with your physical form because you have no respect for a system that pollutes the planet and sends entire species into extinction, why the **** would you suddenly be all respectful in front of someone placed in a position of authority who represents that very same system? You're in the system whether you're in jail or not.
No - they got 5 years for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
conspiracy to commit murder is rather different from conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. Looking up conspiracy perhaps might be worthwhile as well. You do not have to commit the act for the conspiracy charge to be valid and you can get as in this case years in jail for conspiracy to commit a no jail time offense
Ok… I’m playing devils advocate here because I’m not talking about the cause, I’m talking about the rule of law.
So… Tommy Robinson and Britain First all passionately believe that this countries problems are caused by immigration
So they decide to plot to bring the road system of the south east to a standstill to highlight their cause
They are arrested while at the planning stage and charged.
They decide to defend themselves and repeatedly interrupt proceedings to shout far right slogans, despite being repeatedly told by the judge not to
As a result of this they are particularly harshly sentenced
I presume you’d all be up in arms over their treatment and condemning at as ‘thought crime’?
Harsh Nickc? - as Argee pointed out it was a political decision to make these defenses inadmissible because folk had been using them to be acquitted.
This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy
Or are you suggesting that if a group of Jihadist (or for balance far right) terrorists were arrested while only at the planning stage of blowing lots of people up, then they shouldn’t be tried as this essentially only amounts to a ‘thought crime’?
Two of the four were arrested near the gantry ready to go. One had bought the climbing kit and rented the accommodation. The other one was the bloke who organised it all. It had progressed far beyond a casual discussion about options.
Bi8nners - false equivalence because the far right slogans are probably illegal in themselves unlike the climate change ones are not - and yes I would fight for their right to have a peaceful protest if they were capable of such a thing and kept within the laws around incitement to racial hatred
You either believe in the right to peaceful protest or you do not.
I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them. Inverse snobbery?
This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy
No, this is exactly what you get in a liberal democracy if you absolutely insist on being a tit
I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them. Inverse snobbery?
I haven’t supported or not supported anything. What I’m defending is the impartial application of our democratically decided laws, applied through an independent judiciary
Its you and various others that seem to have an issue with that, because you support that particular cause, so maybe it’s you who has more in common with North Korea, Kim Jong Jezza?
Do you think the suffragettes should have had massive jail sentences? The greenham common protestors? The anti apartheid protesters? The anti nazi protesters? the pro choice protesters?
You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of the impartiality of the independent judiciary in a democracy
Which bit are you struggling with?
Because it looks like you’re advocating totalitarianism
Tandem Putin!
Errmmm - do you realise that the best defenses they have have been removed from them? Defenses that has worked in the past.
these are defenses that have been removed from protesters having been successfully used in the past.
Its an unjust law
Its you that is gleefully enjoying a totalitarian law here. Not allowed top speak in their defense
democratically decided laws
Errrmmm - the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician. Nothing democratic about having your rights that have been enjoyed for hundreds of years removed on the whim of a politician. No democvratic votye on this
I’m sure that Stalin would have insisted that the establishment of communism was a worthwhile cause to create a traffic jam on the M25.
The court would have declared that inadmissible too. You can’t just pick and choose Pol Jezza
Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?
That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge. The judge stating that climate change is opinion display a breach of Rule 1 by the learned gentleman (who would appear to be incompetent to try the case by reason of the section in bold).
Lets get this right. You think thats it right that a basic legal defense successfully used previously and a long standing principle in UK law has been removed on the whim of a politician. I find it odd you are on the same side as Braverman on this and on the opposite side to the UN bod, amnesty, and various other civil rights organisations
Weird
That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge
Yeah, but he’s got the wig on so… you know… probably worth taking note of the difference in job title and subsequent power balance between ‘your honour’ and ‘the accused’ before being a dick
Just a thought
the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician.
A democratically elected hard right politician.
If you don't like the laws get yourself elected and change them.
So to clarify Binners, is your position on this...... that because in court, they repeatedly tried to use as a defence, something which up until this point has previously been allowed, but as a result of the Tory clamp down on protest was now deemed illegal, that they deserve 5 years in jail and should just take this lying down?
This clampdown and shutdown of protest, let's not forget, in the name of climate justice, was pushed for by Lee Anderson and Stella Braverman amongst others. Your response is that they're dreaded weirdos and deserve everything that they get? Brill.
I am waiting for Keir Starmer to amend this draconian unjust law which has caused the imprisonment of these brave freedom fighters.
Are the grown-ups posting pictures again?
We are all subject to the same laws. They are set by democratically elected governments (which we may or may not have voted for) and applied equally to all by an independent judiciary
if any of us find ourselves in a court of law, we are all subject to the same proceedings and judgements, which we will be made well aware of
You are suggesting that the people who’s cause you agree with should be cut more slack than those who’s causes you don’t agree with or who don’t have a ‘cause’ at all to use as an excuse for their lawbreaking
They seemed to think that because they personally thought their cause was just that they should be somehow exempt to the laws that cover the rest of us.
I’m sure most criminals could come up with some argument or other to say the same
I’m not expressing an opinion either way about what causes I think are more just than others. I’m simply saying that we are all equal under the law and if you decide that’s not the case, and you possess some sort of entitlement to exemplary considerations, then there’s a potential price to be paid for that.
You then run the risk that said independent judiciary may take a pretty dim view of your sense of entitlement and exceptionalism
You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’
Will you be applying this to all cases before the courts, or just this one?
What if you’re busy before a trial starts so you can’t inform the judge who the goodies and the baddies are?
The attorney general at the time raised an appeal, which the high court reviewed, and it was the high court that made the ruling, can't remember the AG's name, female tory KC, but to raise and be successful with the appeal, they would have had to have a decent argument.
Again, no real understanding of all the goings on in this trial, but two things you don't do in court is be in contempt, and jury tampering, both of which it sounds like happened during this trial on several occasions, but not at a level to have a mistrial.
It has a feel of being a bit of a show trial by ER/JSO, so doubt it'll stop whatever is coming next, personally, i have no real feel for this one, sentences look harsh, but i think everyone who understands what's been going on with JSO and other protests, changes to legislation and so on, is this a line in the sand for future protests, will it escalate, it's not looking great.
You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’
There is a two tier system of justice and it is exactly what we need to be fighting against. Look at what happened on the Sarah Everard vigil. Look at what happened to the Republic protesters at the coronation. Now look at the comparative wide berth given to Tommy Robinson and his gang of psychotic thugs. As TJ has pointed out, the very banners and slogan many of them parade could be classed as hate crimes.
Yet Hallam et al are denied the right of use of a defence which has historically been deemed as acceptable. This has been pushed through by authoritarian idealogues. You claim it as an example of liberal democracy. That is a mistake. Instead, it is an example of iliberal democracy, one of the key manifestations of right wing populist governments. It is a clear assault on true liberal democracy and it is very dangerous to not call it out as such. Look at what the more radical right in America are doing in the courts right now. That is not democractic in any sense, yet it is happening in the 'land of the free'.
You can rail against it all you like, but the sentences handed out today (which I personally think are absolutely preposterous) are entirely of their own making
You don’t get to ignore the rules that apply to everyone else because of some sense of personal righteousness.
Well, you can, but this is what happens
I’ll repeat again: if it was Tommy Robinson doing it - who I don’t doubt feels just as passionately about his particular ‘cause’ as JSO do - you’d all be cheering his 5 year sentence
We either have an impartial, independent system of justice - that is blind to ‘causes’ and concentrated on the actual law - or we don’t. And if we don’t then we’re all ****ed!
You may be personally unhappy with todays judgements, but the alternative is far, far worse, because who gets to decide which causes are just and which aren’t?
The judges summing up is a good read. It expains fully the reasons for these entirely justified sentences. Not least that the planned disruption was far worse than that they succeeded in achieving. The consensus view on climate change is accepted.
The conduct of Hallam during the trial did not add to his sentence but derived him of any mitigation based on the plea he was a changed man.
Multiple previous convictions with light sentences had not deterred them.
^ that's the side that you're on Binners. A troll posting shite to poke fun at David Lammy yesterday....I can't imagine his motivation for that thread.
My motivation? I hadn't seen it before and was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.
Troll? Just someone with different opinions to you. Last time I checked that was allowed.
^ that’s the side that you’re on Binners
Sides?
Do you not get what I’m saying?
I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise
There shouldn’t be, and can’t be ‘sides’ when it comes to legal proceedings and judgements. That’s the way it just has to be
... was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.
I'm amazed that you're amazed. It's hardly like incompetence is a new phenomenon amongst cabinet reshuffles.
In this particular role, in the last ten years prior to Lammy we've had: David Cameron, James Cleverly, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson. Paragons of virtue and intellectual heavyweights all I'm sure you'll agree, Lammy sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison.
I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise
correct - and this is not. The removal of the necessity defense was a political act of interference from a politican.