You seem to be arguing that it's not authoritarian cause the law says so, which seems a somewhat flawed framework.
Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
They're a modern day Rosa Parks, lobbing soup at historical paintings.
I guess the question is what is an equivalent case - if you try to damage something worth that much, what punishment should you get?
On another note this seems purely for attention, why the F are they throwing soup at artworks?
On another note this seems purely for attention, why the F are they throwing soup at artworks?
I think you've answered your question before you asked it here.
2 years for that is fecking insane.
I'm arguing that a sentencing based on the legal frameworks set by law which clearly defines the consequences of criminal damage does not make a country authoritarian.
It's funny that actually suffering consequences for destroying or attempting to destroy precious artwork is someone deemed "authoritarian."
It's also funny because UK has some of the most lenient laws around criminal damage compared to most of Europe.
Did they destroy the artwork? Did the artwork actually suffer any damage?
Intent, like with every single crime, is measured.
And the frame, valued at £18,000, was damaged to the tune of £10,000, yes.
You believe they intended to damage the painting?
If someone deliberately threw a hammer at a priceless Ming vase in a museum and it missed, breaking the window behind it, the judge would be required to sentence on the potential shattering of the vase, rather than just the damage to the window. Which seems fair.
This line of logic doesn't hold up in court. You can't attempt to damage something that is somewhat protected and then argue, "Well, actually I was aware of the protection mechanisms would have stopped me anyway."
Extrapolate that to things outside of just criminal damage and shit gets wild.
What they did do is intend to, and indeed damage a £18,000 frame.
Yes, because they damaged the frame.
I still do not share your apparent grave concern for 18k's worth of fancy frame, nor am I particularly intrigued by the budding extrapolatory arguments you may be tempted to flesh out explaining how one moment it's a gold frame the next it's my gran.
Common sense should apply.
It's a fecking frame. 2 years prison for 10k damage to a frame is utterly stupid.
They'll probably do the serious stuff when they get released after being taught for 2 years by proper criminals.
problem is if you let them get away with it, it sets an example for others, and before you know it the very fabric of society breaks down and people are unstickying threads willy nilly.
I do wonder if you'd share the same sentiment if something functionally limited but valued very highly that you personally owned got severely damaged.
Actually, I want to ask. If a vandal wrecked your car, what would you think a fairness consequence would be?
Furthermore, if you do not believe price/value of an object should be a factor in determining sentence, what do you think should be the determining factor?
Sentencing remarks from the court - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
It's so extremely funny that you're actually wondering about this. I'm just imaging you thinking they'll go "wait, actually, two years in jail for damaging my car sounds super reasonable, why didn't I think of this really good point?", and it's making my day.
I don't know. I've worked in a museum, and I've handled objects worth an obscene amount of money. I've worked with conservators to preserve and repair some of those objects. Despite this, I cannot believe for a second that momentarily splashing soup onto a frame could cause any lasting damage, let alone £10,000 worth. It's a bullshit insurance claim.
There was some soup on the glass. It probably dripped right off.
I mean, I'm as proud of ol' Vincent as any Dutchman, but this sentence is moronic.
Unlikely, the museum will have a higher excess/deductible than £10k
The damage, according to the judge was based on the risk of the soup getting onto the canvas.
Well in your made up scenario they wouldn't be wrecking my car. They'd be wrecking a fancy gold frame and glass i had put around my car.
I don't think prison sentence, especially 2 fecking year ones are appropriate for what these people did.
Ban them from all museums and galleries and make them pay the damages to the frame.
2 years for throwing soup? ….8 1/2 years for murder with a machete, what the actual feck ?!!
The law in this country is the fecking pits !!
The law in this country is the fecking pits !!
"Damaging my car" to the tune of 10k?
I personally would be pissed off to hell if someone wrecked my car and I had to pay 10k damages to repair (yes, yes, insurance, but it's still a big excess and absolute pain in the ass and not everyone has comprehensive), and then the guy got 100 hours community service and a £120 fine.
@SilentWitness and you paid 18k for that gold frame and glass?
Yes, two years for that would be absolutely insane, and it's hilarious that you expected a different reply (it's not an equivalent situation because repairing the frame was basically free, but that's beside the point).
I do not own a car, or anything worth anywhere near £10,000. For a sensible answer I'm afraid you shall have to first buy me a car.
Serious drug offences (supply and importation), serious assaults, domestic violence cases, thefts and burglaries with >£10k damage plus, you know, actual victims with hugely devastating impacts on actual lives routinely get far far less than this. Often with the offenders having significant records for similar or other kinds of dangerous/violent/serious offending.
It’s a joke.
It’s patently a nonsense on its own merit but when compared to general sentencing practices in the UK it’s a complete farce.
The unfathomably long line of victims who have felt utterly meaningless following sentencing hearings must be wondering why they can be so tough in this one area.
It’s a joke.
It’s patently a nonsense on its own merit but when compared to general sentencing practices in the UK it’s a complete farce.
The unfathomably long line of victims who have felt utterly meaningless following sentencing hearings must be wondering why they can be so tough in this one area.
I wouldnt even want someone who vandalised my car put in jail unless it was a pattern of violent behaviour that could harm someone. What benefit would that do, unless I was a really vindictive person? Weird thing to say.
It’s incredibly obvious that Just Stop Oil are right. That their cause will prove justified and that their tactics really quite tame stunts in the full perspective of things.
The spectre of angry pedants getting irate about them being annoying or not doing things the correct way or demanding that punishment is seen to be done because society demands it is by far the weirder and sadder thing. It’s so silly and small. And will patently eventually been seen as such by everyone too. Probably far too late though.
Last edited:
Ah I think they deserve it to be honest. You can't just go around needlessly vandalizing things in the name of climate activism. Just attention seeking scumbags really.
I can't imagin£ why w£ would b£.
Here's what I make of it. There is no fecking plan. The plan is this, inasmuch as there is even the hint of any: pray to whatever God you believe in that technological solutions will somehow manage to solve the climate problem (and let other nations do it first, too). Meanwhile, impose Draconian laws upon people protesting the fecking obvious problem which, every time, exposes the complete lack of any plan. It would be a farce if it weren't tragic.
As Mockney said above, these protestors are so obviously on the right side of history that the arguments against are not only stupid (or ignorant) now, but so obviously wrong that you have to wonder how and why people even bother.
It's like that theory: give people a topic involving any thing (with a reasonable "side" and an insane side) you can conceive of and no matter how ridiculous that topic is, there will be advocates for the insane options. It's almost human nature.
As Mockney said above, these protestors are so obviously on the right side of history that the arguments against are not only stupid (or ignorant) now, but so obviously wrong that you have to wonder how and why people even bother.
It's like that theory: give people a topic involving any thing (with a reasonable "side" and an insane side) you can conceive of and no matter how ridiculous that topic is, there will be advocates for the insane options. It's almost human nature.
2 years in jail for throwing soup? Not even The Soup Nazi would deem that reasonable.
It’s a global problem, it requires a global solution, a global solution requires countries working together towards a common goal.
For me it’s clear that it has to be a technological solution.
By all means, maybe there will be a hard reset in several countries in Europe when a new generation gets voting rights, not entirely sure that’s going to change much on a global scale.
Who cares, its a fecking frame.
Note the problem. The world has not, in a very long, long, time, ever been less cohesive. Sure, technological solutions but the sheer scale of the problem requires more than technology. A general vast works program regarding de-desertification and all manner of things.
Nations are aware, imo, and pulling up the gates. Inside these gates, the laws will become more and more Draconian. In evidence already.
Is their cause right? Yes. Are their tactics right? Nope.
Yep, definitely needless. We're absolutely nailing the climate issue. What did disruption and disturbance ever achieve?