• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jailed in the UK for....

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know, I nearly spat my tea out when I realized you knew who he was, hence my elaboration. ;)
I used to have a Brit that worked for me. Here in the US many of the local town names can be very hard to pronounce since they are of Native American origin and then reworked by the settlers that took their place. A non-local will stick out like a sore thumb. At any rate that led her to challenging me with some British city names. I ticked her off when I got hers right. Towcester was the one that snapped her. Now I of course want to read that Toe-ces-ter. But I know how to pronounce Worcestershire Sauce properly and just used the same reasoning.

Don't ask me to pronounce any Welsh city names. I am convinced that not even the natives can do that.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I overly analyze them for inconsistencies, ruins the immersion a bit.
I can get ticked off when the scriptwriter does not properly follow the book that the movie is based upon. At least I used to be that way. Now it can be interesting to see a different interpretation of the original.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
I used to have a Brit that worked for me. Here in the US many of the local town names can be very hard to pronounce since they are of Native American origin and then reworked by the settlers that took their place. A non-local will stick out like a sore thumb. At any rate that led her to challenging me with some British city names. I ticked her off when I got hers right. Towcester was the one that snapped her. Now I of course want to read that Toe-ces-ter. But I know how to pronounce Worcestershire Sauce properly and just used the same reasoning.

Don't ask me to pronounce any Welsh city names. I am convinced that not even the natives can do that.
Our disdain for phonetics is legendary, with regard to place names. It's bizarre to us too. The locals know the correct way pronounce the names of their towns, they always correct you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Our disdain for phonetics is legendary, with regard to place names. It's bizarre to us too. The locals know the correct way pronounce the names of their towns, they always correct you.
There are US pronunciations that put my teeth on edge. For example; Cairo, Illinois.


And I can instantly teach someone how to say Louisville like a native. Just get a small handful of marbles or even better clean gravel, put it in your mouth and try saying the city's name without cracking any teeth.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I can see what you're saying, though I feel the government is setting a worrying precedent in doing this.
That could only be the case if the government was pushing something new or different though. The rules and laws being applied in this case aren't anything new (and remember that most UK judges aren't government appointments but largely independent officials). The difference is the protestors pushing at the limits and spinning the consequences to the welcoming tabloid media.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
"...a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change...or their motivations for taking action during their trials.

The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning."

Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court.

Tim Crosland, a lawyer and one of those being investigated by the Met, said: “It’s surreal. On the one hand it’s terrifying because that is the situation in this country at the moment, and on the other hand I feel like we are revealing something truthful about the situation, the extreme repression that is happening in this country at the moment in relation to people holding the government to account … and the repression that is happening in courts around trials for people exposing the government’s lies and how desperate the state is to prevent a jury reaching not guilty verdicts..."

So..... you're on trial for ABC but in your defence you are not allowed to speak about ABC....

- Protester who held sign outside London climate trial prosecuted


What the actual is happening? :mad:
Same thing people are muzzled for saying things about Covid.

Welcome to dystopia.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
And they are. Referred to as "recent legislation" in the article. It is the new Public Order Act 2023.
That has nothing to do with any of these actual cases though, it was just political spin added by a campaign group off the back of the cases (a classic example of why it is necessary to protect the legal system from being hijacked by political campaigners).

The initial case of climate protestors involved blocking the public highway, the prosecutions for ignoring the judges ruling about bringing climate politics in to those cases involved contempt of court and the people using placards to try to influence jurors involved perverting the course of justice. All of those involve long established laws and legal principles and have absolutely nothing to do with the 2023 act. Many of the events and actions even predate the 2023 act coming in to effect.

Any protestors who are being tried for offences alleged committed during their protests have always had practical limitations on raising the politics of their protest in their defence (because it generally isn't legally relevant) and there have always been strict restrictions around things that might unduly influence the decision making of judges or juries (rightly so). The only difference in this case is that you're hearing about it, because some people apparently want to use it to spin a particular political narrative.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Is the judge not administering the law?
Of course. But the law does not consist just of statute law. There is also common law, and in either case, the interpretation of laws is built up by precedent from previous cases, not to mention the general issue of control of court proceedings, to make sure that judgments are reached on proper grounds, with clarity.

Is it a particular element of statute law you think is harmful here? The Grauniad article says the recent public Order Act was used to prosecute a protester outside the court. That is one issue, certainly. But you seemed (unless I've misunderstood you) to be objecting to something different, namely the judge's refusal to allow the defendants in the case to refer to climate change as their motive for their alleged law-breaking. That, it seems to me, is nothing to do with any government statute. Surely it's just the judge, quite correctly, insisting that the trial stick to the points at issue in the trial, isn't it?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Of course. But the law does not consist just of statute law. There is also common law, and in either case, the interpretation of laws is built up by precedent from previous cases, not to mention the general issue of control of court proceedings, to make sure that judgments are reached on proper grounds, with clarity.

Is it a particular element of statute law you think is harmful here? The Grauniad article says the recent public Order Act was used to prosecute a protester outside the court. That is one issue, certainly. But you seemed (unless I've misunderstood you) to be objecting to something different, namely the judge's refusal to allow the defendants in the case to refer to climate change as their motive for their alleged law-breaking. That, it seems to me, is nothing to do with any government statute. Surely it's just the judge, quite correctly, insisting that the trial stick to the points at issue in the trial, isn't it?
I would presume (perhaps incorrectly) that a defendent is able to say what they wish in their defence, if they see it as relevant.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
That has nothing to do with any of these actual cases though, it was just political spin added by a campaign group off the back of the cases (a classic example of why it is necessary to protect the legal system from being hijacked by political campaigners).

The initial case of climate protestors involved blocking the public highway, the prosecutions for ignoring the judges ruling about bringing climate politics in to those cases involved contempt of court and the people using placards to try to influence jurors involved perverting the course of justice. All of those involve long established laws and legal principles and have absolutely nothing to do with the 2023 act. Many of the events and actions even predate the 2023 act coming in to effect.

Any protestors who are being tried for offences alleged committed during their protests have always had practical limitations on raising the politics of their protest in their defence (because it generally isn't legally relevant) and there have always been strict restrictions around things that might unduly influence the decision making of judges or juries (rightly so). The only difference in this case is that you're hearing about it, because some people apparently want to use it to spin a particular political narrative.
My only general response is that this case seems to me to be an example demonstrating that government definitely has a political drive to counter protests (and strikes).
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I would presume (perhaps incorrectly) that a defendent is able to say what they wish in their defence, if they see it as relevant.
Well no, they can't. No court system could allow that. They have a defence counsel who can make arguments on their behalf and they can - indeed must - answer questions put to them by the prosecution or the defence. But if they stray away from the questions they will get shut down.

They can be invited to make a statement before sentence is passed if they are convicted.

And that's it.

That's just long-established court procedure, to make sure the trial sticks to the legal points.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
They have a defence counsel who can make arguments on their behalf
This is where I would think the accused's input is utilised? If the protest was about XYZ is the defence counsel not going to be able to make arguments concerning XYZ? Otherwise the action is simply random and meaningless. Presumably the lawyer in the article knows there is a issue here of enforcing a new restriction?
 
Top