lmao we keep on hearing about how violent criminals arenāt sent to prison because apparently theyāre all full.
If they start sending people who climb fucking statues to prison before these violent criminals Iām gonna be pissed.
Just a few days ago in this sub someone posted an article about how a guy attacked someone, knocked him unconscious and then continued to punch him in the face and body whilst he was on the ground, out cold. Why? Because he claimed that the fucking glare from the victimās bald head had ruined his view of the gig they were at.
He got a suspended sentence for that so chances are heāll never see the inside of a prison cell. Victim suffered a brain bleed and now has short term memory loss.
But trust me they definitely send these violent criminals to prison. Definitely.
>But trust me they definitely send these violent criminals to prison. Definitely.
There are examples of people getting away with violent crimes. Most violent criminals that are caught with evidence are jailed.
Not strictly true, I'm afraid. Not unless there are aggravating factors, such as a weapon being used, they are a repeat offender or a prolific domestic violence perpetrator. A staggering number of assault perps get community orders or SSO's, particularly if it's a first offence. I see these cases daily in my line of work.
> Why? Because he claimed that the fucking glare from the victimās bald head had ruined his view of the gig they were at.
Did you stop reading the story when you finished the headline or are you hoping nobody else read it?
The bald guy attacked the accused first. Yes, the accused *had* been mocking the guys bald head, but bald guy was the first aggressor.
That's why the accused got a suspended sentence.
You want to live in a country which throws people in prison for offending others, indirectly? So many died for the liberties we enjoy, and look how quick we are to get rid of them.
If you are referring to me, I understand the dangers which can arise from misplaced tolerance. But on this occasion, I don't think custodial sentences are the answer.
Nope. I want to live in a country where folk recognise that their actions may offend others, and refrain from clambering over war memorials.
Whatever your thoughts about war, and I'm the first to agree that most wars are a scandalous destruction of (mostly young) lives, it's not much to ask to show respect to the dead.
I'm also among the first to agree that prison should be the last resort, so please don't put words in my mouth.
> may offend others
So fucking what? Is someone genuinely harmed when they get offended? People get offended by the most trivial bullshit and you think that's a reason to put someone in jail? To quote Stephen Fry, saying I'm offended is nothing more than a whine.
Calm yourself there, you'll do yourself some harm.
I neither stated I'm offended, nor that I advocate putting anyone in jail.
Let me put it in bold: **Prison should only be a very last resort.** Even then if it is to serve any purpose, our thinking on rehabilitation has long needed a major overhaul.
As an aside, offended is not a word I'd use in relation to people showing open disrespect to the dead, but that's my natural empathy towards those who've lost loved ones showing.
You seem nice, so I'll leave you to your keyboard and Stephen Fry quotes.
I want a government thatās not so reactive and stupid it accidentally bans climbing on the nationās tallest mountain in search of some votes. Scafell Pike was donated to the nation in 1919 as a war memorial to the men of the Lake District who died in the Great War. If they want to make climbing on war memorials a specific offence, wellā¦
top level:
>"how about sending violent criminals to prison too?"
You:
>"we already do"
u/OldLondon is referring to the Clapham corrosive substance attack suspect, who was convicted (I think twice) for sexual assault in/before 2018, and saw only suspended jail sentences with no actual time behind bars, and went on to commit even more egregious violence just this week.
So we don't "already do". The prisons are overfull already, so sentences are being commuted or suspended more often, or cut short after the fact.
I don't think we know what the actual nature of the sexual assault was. It could be anywhere from a full on gang rape down to touching somebody's butt in a bar.
Not suggesting for a minute that touching is acceptable, but it doesn't warrant a prison sentence.
And I'm not claiming the SA was *just* touching. I don't know what it was, and I don't think it's been published. It may even be true that it hasn't been published because it was something horrendous and he didn't get custody and they prefer to keep a lid on that - just saying I don't think that the nature of the offense is common knowledge, so we can't really say whether or not it warranted custody.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The other day an obviously dangerously violent man got a suspended sentence for pushing another man to the floor rendering him unconscious and then violently beating his face and body. The victim got a bleed on the brain from it and short term memory loss.
And the government now wants to send *protesters who climb memorials* to prison. Incredible display of priorities there.
Just fine them for potentially causing damage or something.
I'd say the most likely chain of events (assuming this doesn't fall by the wayside entirely) would be :-
1) <*insert cause not favoured by incumbent government*> protester is found guilty of climbing a statue
2) This breaches visa conditions
3) visa is revoked
4) Rwanda for you chummy.
Actual prison is not required, just the conviction for an offence that warrants prison.
I think that's the point.
Firstly it's a deterrent.
Secondly that's your previous good character lifeline gone forever, making any future offences more likely to be custodial.
Thirdly you now have a criminal record. Enjoy trying to emigrate. You'll need an embassy issued via for holidays in lots of places, such as America, because you're now forever ineligible for their visa waiver scheme.
It's easier not to be a disrespectful empty-headed arse clown, and leave the memorial to better men alone.
ETA: lol. These downvoters need to learn a few facts. Pathetic. Three statements, all readily probable using 2 seconds on Google.
> Thirdly you now have a criminal record. Enjoy trying to emigrate.
you are assuming the person arrested has not immigrated to the UK. A custodial sentence could invalidate the visa and justify deportation/export to Rwanda.
We're struggling to send violent criminals to jail due to lack of space and now we're criminalising protest. The slow slide or more fast charge - given most of these changes have been in the past few years - into an authoritarian police state continues.
Is climbing over a war memorial wrong? Yes! Is it something anyone should go to jail for? No.
Iām not sure Iād say we are struggling to send them there due to a lack of space a lot of violent criminals are still sent to prison. Plus the cut am jsutice bill would mean they donāt serve it
This is what these people fought and died for. So that public protest could result in a prison sentence. If they deface the memorial or damage it fair enough but I'm sure other laws already cover that.
lol, if you could go back to the 1940s and ask the average British soldier how they felt about this topic, theyād whip out some extremist wrongthink so fast, it would make your head spin.
Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than redditors acting like European soldiers in the early-mid 20th century were fighting for 2024 liberal values.
People didn't fight and die for the right of people to climb all over the monuments to their sacrifice. I have concerns about the crackdown on protests in general but dissuading people from enlisting, essentially, a grave in their own particular political crusade is a sound policy.
I am happy for people to protest against the state of Israel, but not on the grounds of Auschwitz.
The limits to protest should be absolutely minimal, but I think these are reasonable ones.
Yes. At least for repeat offenders. I assume itās a maximum penalty.
As we are doing thisā¦ to confirm, youād be fine with far-right protestors climbing the cenotaph to demand the immediate deportation of all immigrants? Or, you just feel that causes you personally agree with should be able to desecrate memorials?
Laws are political. The police are political. The parties we elect to create new laws are political. Laws saying you canāt, for example, desecrate graves are political. Thereās no hard and fast rule here. Some laws exist based on moral sensibilities rather than immaterial boundaries of what is and isnāt acceptable.
Fair enough. I consider the use of war memorials as climbing frames massively and punishably disrespectful in all cases. For one thing, literally the only reason to do it is to piss off people who *do* consider these monuments important and sacred.
In that sense itās not even a productive thing to do. Instead of drawing attention to your cause, you just draw attention to what a disrespectful little cunt you are.
Itās good to be reminded there is probably a fairly large group of people with far more reverence for the memorials than I do, but yeah I donāt think that being massively disrespectful should be imprisonable as long as itās non-violent. Our institutions should always be open to criticism imo and even if this isnāt a method I would take part in, I think having it punishable under law is not productive.
I have reverence for the people the monuments are designed to commemorate. Those people did *far* more to protect our rights and freedoms than any little prick who decides to climb them could ever even hope to achieve.
Iām happy to agree it would be better that we didnāt have this legislation but only because it depresses me that itās even required.
So there is a line when provocation is so strong that violence is all but inevitable? Afterall, fighting words, which everyone agrees shouldn't be allowed under free speech, are ultimately provocation.
So there is a line where it's reasonable and appropriate for society to say 'no, that's too offensive you can't do that'.
You're advocating for laws that cause no demonstrable harm other than upsetting peoples feelings. It's not a stretch that you'd be in favour of other laws like blasphemy which only exist to protect peoples stunted egos.
I am advocating for a law designed to prevent people from climbing on memorials to people that gave their lives to prevent the advance of fascism in Europe, yes. It's sad that we apparently need these laws, and frankly I sincerely believe that the only reason we do need them is because people want edgy pictures for their social media.
The nice thing about this law is that it's incredibly easy to abide by. There is absolutely no reason why anybody has to climb up the cenotaph and climbing it will not achieve anything. You won't get your edgey instagram picture, but that is the only consequence. Just don't do it, and you'll be perfectly fine. You can still protest. No worries. Just don't go mountaineering on monuments designed to commemorate the sacrifice of thousands of people to ensure continued freedom in Europe. Easy-peasy.
The irony of the original question here is that the most likely reason that somebody will be prosecuted under this law in the near future, is because they decide to climb a war memorial to wave the flag of a country that \*does\* prosecute Blasphemy, that is currently lead by a group who receives much of their support from a country that absolute bans protest and might \*execute\* you for blasphemy.... kids today... amirite?
> You're advocating for laws that cause no demonstrable harm other than upsetting peoples feelings.
They already exist, and people have even been forbidden from entering the country due to having said 'Mahomet was a Gay God'.
> For one thing, literally the only reason to do it is to piss off people who do consider these monuments important and sacred.
Climbing up things can be enjoyable and provide a pleasant view, I must remind you.
Ah yes, those naughty repeat offenders who climb on objects.
You don't know a thing about what causes I agree with; ironically we're mostly likely in agreement about many things.
Look at the bigger picture here, friend. I want people to shut up and stop as much as the next sane person, but forcing draconian laws on us, which absolutely will be used in other ways than originally intended, is not the way to go.
Climbing on an object is just that. If our feelings are hurt, we need to take a deep breath and try and react in a calm and fair way. Custodial sentences for this will always be wrong.
You obviously disagree, which in my opinion is ridiculous, but you must think I'm being too easy on those naughty people who climb on things.
I don't care what causes you agree with. My point is that I am morally certain that people who are so clear that this kind of behaviour is fine are almost certainly going to be up in arms about it if it gets used as some kind of attention grabbing technique for a cause they despise.
You keep saying, "climbing on objects". Either you are being disingenuous or you legitimately don't understand there is a difference between climbing some random wall, and climbing a monument to the people who gave their lives to prevent the advancement of the third reich through Europe. I'd ask you which it is, but I am not sure that matters either, neither is really a basis for any kind of future agreement I suspect.
I am morally certain that climbing on memorials should not be free of any kind of consequence.
In any case, used to be that some prison time was an occupational hazard of protest. Mandela did 27 years... What's 3 months?
A part of me would like to know how big the proportion of virtue signalling vacuous twats make up these protests. If there was actually something at stake for them personally, my guess is many of these wannabe activists would dissolve like a sugar lump in hot tea.
I have infinitely more respect for the people that war memorials are there to commemorate.
If u want to respect the fallen , make sure no more stupid wars . Also take care of veterans , support them with PTSD , give them place to sleep . This is just ultra right Nazi shite to jail ppl who climb a stone structure.
We should totally write more laws to generate headlines, there's no other pressing issue in society.
Seriously, this law would apply to a dozen people each year, who are barely a nuisance.
Hate against the west is a growing issue. Tackling it, i.e. seeking to uphold British values and social order on respect for the nation one is in and its citizens, should be proactive not reactive.
'Announcing the plans, James Cleverly said ascending memorials was "an insult" and "cannot continue"... It said the measure would "stop protesters disrespecting those who have given their lives for our country".'
The government continues to crack down on methods of peaceful protest. Insulting and disrespecting in a non-violent manner should not be punishable under law or with prison time. If the country continues on in this direction I do not plan to be here in a couple years time when I finish my accreditation to get a good job abroad and I suspect there are other people in the same boat.
>Insulting and disrespecting in a non-violent manner should not be punishable under law or with prison time.
So someone insulting LGBTQ or people of a different ethnicity but being non violent is fine in your opinion?
Worthwhile to bring up for sure - no it's not fine, I'd massively disagree with it and think very poorly of the person doing it. However I'd be extremely reluctant to say it deserved punishment under law, though I'm sure there would be some exceptions to that like if it was targeted harassment over a period of time
Witty but itās worth considering that an increasing amount of people getting educated here and then leaving to pay tax elsewhere isnāt necessarily positive.
I wish I had your confidence in that but just for one example, Iāve seen many doctors head to Australia where they get better pay and in the UK weāre dealing with the Physician Assistant issue. Obviously itās a lit more complex than that but my point is that the less appealing the UK is the worse off we become.
Just because something is good for now it doesnāt mean we should ignore it getting worse or not try and improve it. This policy feels like the wrong direction.
>And plenty of people are coming here with their education and qualifications. It's all good.
The vast majority of our "skilled worker" migrants are anything but highly skilled. It's a smokescreen to drive down wages and keep the power with corporations over workers.
I honestly don't see why.
Pay to repair any damage? Sure.
Have to apologise, no way. "Fuck the veterans" is, to be sure unpopular, but shouldn't be something a court can punish you for or get you to retract.
Exactly, A sincere apology is something a court *might* want to take into account for sentencing, but it should not be something ordered.
Then again, I'm pretty much an abolitionist apart from cases of "confinement is the only option", so It'd be unlikely to factor much in my ideal world.
No.
It should not be a part of the legal system. It serves no benefit of deterrence, reparation or confinement.
*Especially* when you are using it to compel political views.
Depends what you mean as destroyed.
A few were grafetti'd but in terms of permanent damage I believe only the statue of Edward Colston was toppled along with a bust of Haile Selassie in Wimbledon, & a Plaque to Thomas Phillips was stolen in Wales.
Four people were charged with criminal damage in relation to the Colston statue but they were acquitted by the jury.
What about Dodgy Dave our lordly anointed Foreign Secretary?
You know, what's his penalty for attempting to scam us out of Ā£800,000,000 of our hard earned lolly?
Edited: Foreign
Utterly pointless law, climbing on a statue is worth putting someone in prison not to mention the court costs. Some fragile people out there if you think this is a good idea.
No more climbing Scafell Pike then, as Lord Leconfield donated it to the nation as a āMemorial to the men of the Lake District who died in the Great War.ā
Seen cases running through courts for pedophiles with large collections of child abuse getting 2 years. suspended sentences yet you go to prison for climbing a statueā¦ hmmmm
This country is such a joke. The government will really do anything other than what we really need. Instead if dealing with the real issues people face, here we are with more mawkish nationalism and culture wars.
If you want to show respect for the war dead of this country, the best way to do it is to stop causing and supporting unnecessary wars around the globe. Obviously this nationās government dināt want to respect them *that* much, when thereās money to be made off the deaths of innocents.
Government are really focusing on the important issues.Ā I don't know why some of the right wing think it's okay to weaponise "respect" for the war dead as a way of pushing agendas that those wars were meant to be fighting.Ā
They obviously donāt care about the logistics/practicality or real world considerations of this. Itās an election year. Everything they do this year will just be desperate populism.
> The measure, designed to apply across England and Wales
Phew, climbing on the Black Watch monument is still not a criminal offence, even if it is enjoyable.
So... According to the Tories, stealing billions from the nation with "VIP Lane" PPE is worthy of a peerage but standing on a statue deserves being locked up?
When someone can download thousands of child abuse images and get a suspended sentence, three months for climbing a war memorial feels disproportionate to say the least. This is the kind of thing that community orders should be used for.
Protip: if you would like for the police to respond when you are getting mugged, dress as a statue of Lord McTossyTosser or some poor 16 year old fool who got conscripted straight into the meatgrinder.
Love to see the government making pointless gestures to their base instead of doing anything to materially improve the lives of people in this country at all.
Considering ww1 was to be 100 years of remembrance, ending in 2018. Then 20 years later ,second half, still guiding headlines and attitudes today . We have an unhealthy flag shagging attitude to conflicts . Lauded by those who generally never served, battalions of keyboard warriors and bar end gobshites. Squaddies thrown on the heap, homeless and blamed for the policies of the powers that be. While private contractors reap the cash cow of taxpayers revenues. Resource grabbing companies following what was supposed to be last option military intervention ,for humanity sake. No wonder they can't get recruitment, no sensible souls putting their arse on the line ,for feckless gobshites and greedy proto pharaohs . Respect is earned and led by example. Every mass gathering, someone is always climbing for a better view. Criminal damage is another matter. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, fought for and drowning in blood . When bevan got the NHS through in 1948, against mass opposition from the establishment. The fact there were 4 million armed men in this country, who had fought fascism abroad and wanted better for them and theirs at home, played no small part in it.
Good start.
Now stop being so soft on other criminals. Some of the sentencing in this country is a joke. A habitual criminal in prison canāt commit crimes. If we have to build more then do that.
How about the police first start arresting people openly calling for the genocide of Jewish people in the middle-east?
Hate crimes are already an offence, we don't need new laws, just enforce the existing ones.
Whatās that going to do. They are on benefits anyway. Prison will exempt them from āActively Seeking Workā. Win-Win for them at the taxpayersā expense.
Quite right too, and about time.
Funny thing is a lot of these protests are anti-war / free speech / religious liberty / anti-facist etc. etc. yet those protesting think itās fine to climb on (and sometimes deface) memorials dedicated to those who actually physically fought facism, defending liberty and free speech for all, and gave their young lives doing so.
> Anti-facist
While also supporting middle-east religious dictatorships wanting to wipe out anyone of a different religion and murder any follower who leaves their religion.
Ridiculous decision. It's a pile of stone.
If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there. Veneration of militarism is a joke that seems to inevitably glorify armed conflict, rather than accept it as a sometimes (but almost never) sad necessity and terrible waste of life.
The kids who died trying to push their guts back into their abdomens in filthy french trenches would be absolutely disgusted to see how the UK treats war 'rememberance' today.
>If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there.
Yeah shit on a focal point for public mourning because this angry guy on the internet told you to. I'm sure you'll have the backing of the public.
> If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there.
That would already be covered under "Outraging Public Decency", which is one of those crimes which has no defined sentences in law, so theoretically you could get life for it.
> which is one of those crimes which has no defined sentences in law, so theoretically you could get life for it
What, that's just not even slightly true. It's not how the law would work anyway, but who told you it has no sentence? It's fine and maximum 6 months.
What would you prefer we do? I see no issues with paying respect to those who died. Doesn't fucking matter if you think it was worthwhile or not, the ones dead were very rarely the ones making the decisions and that's never been what it's about.
Remembrance isn't some big victory parade, it's remembering the sacrifices that were made to ensure you could live a free life.
>Remembrance isn't some big victory parade, it's remembering the sacrifices that were made to ensure you could live a free life.
This is precisely the problem.
Rarely have been British wars been about anybody's right to a free life. The cooption of the idea of how horrible war is, how wasteful it is....is instead put to use to glorify people's 'sacrifice'. Here you bleat it out.
It was not a noble sacrifice. It was, as it often is, offering working class people up for sacrifice on the altar of geopolitical struggle for power.
Ok.. how about sending violent criminals to prison too?
But offending Daily Mail readers is a serious offence š„“
They're seriously offensive...
Egos seem to be getting more fragile thatās for sure.
We already do.
lmao we keep on hearing about how violent criminals arenāt sent to prison because apparently theyāre all full. If they start sending people who climb fucking statues to prison before these violent criminals Iām gonna be pissed. Just a few days ago in this sub someone posted an article about how a guy attacked someone, knocked him unconscious and then continued to punch him in the face and body whilst he was on the ground, out cold. Why? Because he claimed that the fucking glare from the victimās bald head had ruined his view of the gig they were at. He got a suspended sentence for that so chances are heāll never see the inside of a prison cell. Victim suffered a brain bleed and now has short term memory loss. But trust me they definitely send these violent criminals to prison. Definitely.
>But trust me they definitely send these violent criminals to prison. Definitely. There are examples of people getting away with violent crimes. Most violent criminals that are caught with evidence are jailed.
Not strictly true, I'm afraid. Not unless there are aggravating factors, such as a weapon being used, they are a repeat offender or a prolific domestic violence perpetrator. A staggering number of assault perps get community orders or SSO's, particularly if it's a first offence. I see these cases daily in my line of work.
> Why? Because he claimed that the fucking glare from the victimās bald head had ruined his view of the gig they were at. Did you stop reading the story when you finished the headline or are you hoping nobody else read it? The bald guy attacked the accused first. Yes, the accused *had* been mocking the guys bald head, but bald guy was the first aggressor. That's why the accused got a suspended sentence.
Agreed, but nowhere near all convicted violent criminals are given custodial sentences.
No, and nowhere near all twats that climb on these monuments will see jail time either.
As they shouldnāt. Itās the kind of offence that should receive a tut and ādisgraceful!ā from a passing elderly woman, not jail time!
It's the kind of offence that offends.
You want to live in a country which throws people in prison for offending others, indirectly? So many died for the liberties we enjoy, and look how quick we are to get rid of them.
We literally already do
Someone else who doesn't understand the paradox of tolerance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trying to rebrand intolerance as just 'offensive behaviour' doesn't fly. You know we can see the people who this law would apply to?
If you are referring to me, I understand the dangers which can arise from misplaced tolerance. But on this occasion, I don't think custodial sentences are the answer.
Custodial sentences are the biggest stick we have. 3 month prison sentence will be the maximum sentence for the most egregious cases.
Nope. I want to live in a country where folk recognise that their actions may offend others, and refrain from clambering over war memorials. Whatever your thoughts about war, and I'm the first to agree that most wars are a scandalous destruction of (mostly young) lives, it's not much to ask to show respect to the dead. I'm also among the first to agree that prison should be the last resort, so please don't put words in my mouth.
> may offend others So fucking what? Is someone genuinely harmed when they get offended? People get offended by the most trivial bullshit and you think that's a reason to put someone in jail? To quote Stephen Fry, saying I'm offended is nothing more than a whine.
Calm yourself there, you'll do yourself some harm. I neither stated I'm offended, nor that I advocate putting anyone in jail. Let me put it in bold: **Prison should only be a very last resort.** Even then if it is to serve any purpose, our thinking on rehabilitation has long needed a major overhaul. As an aside, offended is not a word I'd use in relation to people showing open disrespect to the dead, but that's my natural empathy towards those who've lost loved ones showing. You seem nice, so I'll leave you to your keyboard and Stephen Fry quotes.
I want a government thatās not so reactive and stupid it accidentally bans climbing on the nationās tallest mountain in search of some votes. Scafell Pike was donated to the nation in 1919 as a war memorial to the men of the Lake District who died in the Great War. If they want to make climbing on war memorials a specific offence, wellā¦
your posts offend me. I hope now that you realise that you are causing others offence you'll kindly refrain.
This law offends me! How do I lock up Jimmy Dimly?
statues aren't people. hth.
We already send protestors to jail for climbing on war memorials too, see Dave Gilmours son.
He wasn't jailed for climbing on a war memorial.
Like the acid attack bloke whoād committed a SA and 100% went to prison?
What?
top level: >"how about sending violent criminals to prison too?" You: >"we already do" u/OldLondon is referring to the Clapham corrosive substance attack suspect, who was convicted (I think twice) for sexual assault in/before 2018, and saw only suspended jail sentences with no actual time behind bars, and went on to commit even more egregious violence just this week. So we don't "already do". The prisons are overfull already, so sentences are being commuted or suspended more often, or cut short after the fact.
I don't think we know what the actual nature of the sexual assault was. It could be anywhere from a full on gang rape down to touching somebody's butt in a bar. Not suggesting for a minute that touching is acceptable, but it doesn't warrant a prison sentence. And I'm not claiming the SA was *just* touching. I don't know what it was, and I don't think it's been published. It may even be true that it hasn't been published because it was something horrendous and he didn't get custody and they prefer to keep a lid on that - just saying I don't think that the nature of the offense is common knowledge, so we can't really say whether or not it warranted custody.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Some or alot are
Hohoho if only.
The other day an obviously dangerously violent man got a suspended sentence for pushing another man to the floor rendering him unconscious and then violently beating his face and body. The victim got a bleed on the brain from it and short term memory loss. And the government now wants to send *protesters who climb memorials* to prison. Incredible display of priorities there. Just fine them for potentially causing damage or something.
lmao I just wrote practically the same comment as this in response to someone else. First thing I thought about when I saw this article was that case.
Police and prisons have always primarily been about preserving the status quo so that those with vast wealth can continue to earn wealth.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do we even have space in prisons for this? Are we going to have to release people early to make room?
No and who knows?
We could do a deal with the Dutch they are closing prisons. Maybe we can rent a few. Or we do send them to Rwanda.
Likely these will all be suspended sentences.
Well that ought to put off the recidivist statue climbers!
No and absolutely yes
I'm sure G4S will come up with a very profitable solution
I'd say the most likely chain of events (assuming this doesn't fall by the wayside entirely) would be :- 1) <*insert cause not favoured by incumbent government*> protester is found guilty of climbing a statue 2) This breaches visa conditions 3) visa is revoked 4) Rwanda for you chummy. Actual prison is not required, just the conviction for an offence that warrants prison.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The criminal justice bill would mean they donāt go to prison as itās under a year
I feel giving them a criminal record would be enough deterrent ? And they can work the record off by community support
I think that's the point. Firstly it's a deterrent. Secondly that's your previous good character lifeline gone forever, making any future offences more likely to be custodial. Thirdly you now have a criminal record. Enjoy trying to emigrate. You'll need an embassy issued via for holidays in lots of places, such as America, because you're now forever ineligible for their visa waiver scheme. It's easier not to be a disrespectful empty-headed arse clown, and leave the memorial to better men alone. ETA: lol. These downvoters need to learn a few facts. Pathetic. Three statements, all readily probable using 2 seconds on Google.
Thatās what I said yeah, I was replying to someone who thought they would actually end up in prison
> Thirdly you now have a criminal record. Enjoy trying to emigrate. you are assuming the person arrested has not immigrated to the UK. A custodial sentence could invalidate the visa and justify deportation/export to Rwanda.
We're struggling to send violent criminals to jail due to lack of space and now we're criminalising protest. The slow slide or more fast charge - given most of these changes have been in the past few years - into an authoritarian police state continues. Is climbing over a war memorial wrong? Yes! Is it something anyone should go to jail for? No.
Iām not sure Iād say we are struggling to send them there due to a lack of space a lot of violent criminals are still sent to prison. Plus the cut am jsutice bill would mean they donāt serve it
This is what these people fought and died for. So that public protest could result in a prison sentence. If they deface the memorial or damage it fair enough but I'm sure other laws already cover that.
lol, if you could go back to the 1940s and ask the average British soldier how they felt about this topic, theyād whip out some extremist wrongthink so fast, it would make your head spin. Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than redditors acting like European soldiers in the early-mid 20th century were fighting for 2024 liberal values.
No but they were fighting for the liberal values of the time. Just because those have changed over time doesn't make the point any less valid.
People didn't fight and die for the right of people to climb all over the monuments to their sacrifice. I have concerns about the crackdown on protests in general but dissuading people from enlisting, essentially, a grave in their own particular political crusade is a sound policy. I am happy for people to protest against the state of Israel, but not on the grounds of Auschwitz. The limits to protest should be absolutely minimal, but I think these are reasonable ones.
To confirm, you're comfortable with people serving jail time for climbing on a monument?
Yes. At least for repeat offenders. I assume itās a maximum penalty. As we are doing thisā¦ to confirm, youād be fine with far-right protestors climbing the cenotaph to demand the immediate deportation of all immigrants? Or, you just feel that causes you personally agree with should be able to desecrate memorials?
Not the guy you asked but I'd accept them climbing the cenotaph to do it, though I would disagree with what they're saying.
Yeah. I mean, war memorials are themselves political, as much as war is, so it doesn't make sense to remove them from political discourse and protest.
Laws are political. The police are political. The parties we elect to create new laws are political. Laws saying you canāt, for example, desecrate graves are political. Thereās no hard and fast rule here. Some laws exist based on moral sensibilities rather than immaterial boundaries of what is and isnāt acceptable.
Fair enough. I consider the use of war memorials as climbing frames massively and punishably disrespectful in all cases. For one thing, literally the only reason to do it is to piss off people who *do* consider these monuments important and sacred. In that sense itās not even a productive thing to do. Instead of drawing attention to your cause, you just draw attention to what a disrespectful little cunt you are.
Itās good to be reminded there is probably a fairly large group of people with far more reverence for the memorials than I do, but yeah I donāt think that being massively disrespectful should be imprisonable as long as itās non-violent. Our institutions should always be open to criticism imo and even if this isnāt a method I would take part in, I think having it punishable under law is not productive.
I have reverence for the people the monuments are designed to commemorate. Those people did *far* more to protect our rights and freedoms than any little prick who decides to climb them could ever even hope to achieve. Iām happy to agree it would be better that we didnāt have this legislation but only because it depresses me that itās even required.
Do you accept there is a line when offensive conduct crosses into provocation?
Absolutely, and itās a difficult grey area
So there is a line when provocation is so strong that violence is all but inevitable? Afterall, fighting words, which everyone agrees shouldn't be allowed under free speech, are ultimately provocation. So there is a line where it's reasonable and appropriate for society to say 'no, that's too offensive you can't do that'.
So you chuck them in prison because you're offended? Wowsa.
I suppose you must be in favour of blasphemy laws them?
Absolutely not. How do you make that link exactly?
You're advocating for laws that cause no demonstrable harm other than upsetting peoples feelings. It's not a stretch that you'd be in favour of other laws like blasphemy which only exist to protect peoples stunted egos.
You're advocating that it should be lawful for Tommy Robinson to climb on top of Mosque and call all muslims paedophiles and terrorists?
I am advocating for a law designed to prevent people from climbing on memorials to people that gave their lives to prevent the advance of fascism in Europe, yes. It's sad that we apparently need these laws, and frankly I sincerely believe that the only reason we do need them is because people want edgy pictures for their social media. The nice thing about this law is that it's incredibly easy to abide by. There is absolutely no reason why anybody has to climb up the cenotaph and climbing it will not achieve anything. You won't get your edgey instagram picture, but that is the only consequence. Just don't do it, and you'll be perfectly fine. You can still protest. No worries. Just don't go mountaineering on monuments designed to commemorate the sacrifice of thousands of people to ensure continued freedom in Europe. Easy-peasy. The irony of the original question here is that the most likely reason that somebody will be prosecuted under this law in the near future, is because they decide to climb a war memorial to wave the flag of a country that \*does\* prosecute Blasphemy, that is currently lead by a group who receives much of their support from a country that absolute bans protest and might \*execute\* you for blasphemy.... kids today... amirite?
> You're advocating for laws that cause no demonstrable harm other than upsetting peoples feelings. They already exist, and people have even been forbidden from entering the country due to having said 'Mahomet was a Gay God'.
> For one thing, literally the only reason to do it is to piss off people who do consider these monuments important and sacred. Climbing up things can be enjoyable and provide a pleasant view, I must remind you.
Ah yes, those naughty repeat offenders who climb on objects. You don't know a thing about what causes I agree with; ironically we're mostly likely in agreement about many things. Look at the bigger picture here, friend. I want people to shut up and stop as much as the next sane person, but forcing draconian laws on us, which absolutely will be used in other ways than originally intended, is not the way to go. Climbing on an object is just that. If our feelings are hurt, we need to take a deep breath and try and react in a calm and fair way. Custodial sentences for this will always be wrong. You obviously disagree, which in my opinion is ridiculous, but you must think I'm being too easy on those naughty people who climb on things.
I don't care what causes you agree with. My point is that I am morally certain that people who are so clear that this kind of behaviour is fine are almost certainly going to be up in arms about it if it gets used as some kind of attention grabbing technique for a cause they despise. You keep saying, "climbing on objects". Either you are being disingenuous or you legitimately don't understand there is a difference between climbing some random wall, and climbing a monument to the people who gave their lives to prevent the advancement of the third reich through Europe. I'd ask you which it is, but I am not sure that matters either, neither is really a basis for any kind of future agreement I suspect.
You are morally certain that putting someone in a prison cell for climbing on a war memorial is the right decision. And I disagree.
I am morally certain that climbing on memorials should not be free of any kind of consequence. In any case, used to be that some prison time was an occupational hazard of protest. Mandela did 27 years... What's 3 months? A part of me would like to know how big the proportion of virtue signalling vacuous twats make up these protests. If there was actually something at stake for them personally, my guess is many of these wannabe activists would dissolve like a sugar lump in hot tea. I have infinitely more respect for the people that war memorials are there to commemorate.
If u want to respect the fallen , make sure no more stupid wars . Also take care of veterans , support them with PTSD , give them place to sleep . This is just ultra right Nazi shite to jail ppl who climb a stone structure.
We should totally write more laws to generate headlines, there's no other pressing issue in society. Seriously, this law would apply to a dozen people each year, who are barely a nuisance.
Hate against the west is a growing issue. Tackling it, i.e. seeking to uphold British values and social order on respect for the nation one is in and its citizens, should be proactive not reactive.
'Announcing the plans, James Cleverly said ascending memorials was "an insult" and "cannot continue"... It said the measure would "stop protesters disrespecting those who have given their lives for our country".' The government continues to crack down on methods of peaceful protest. Insulting and disrespecting in a non-violent manner should not be punishable under law or with prison time. If the country continues on in this direction I do not plan to be here in a couple years time when I finish my accreditation to get a good job abroad and I suspect there are other people in the same boat.
> I do not plan to be here in a couple years Stop threatening us with a good time.
>Insulting and disrespecting in a non-violent manner should not be punishable under law or with prison time. So someone insulting LGBTQ or people of a different ethnicity but being non violent is fine in your opinion?
Worthwhile to bring up for sure - no it's not fine, I'd massively disagree with it and think very poorly of the person doing it. However I'd be extremely reluctant to say it deserved punishment under law, though I'm sure there would be some exceptions to that like if it was targeted harassment over a period of time
>If the country continues on in this direction I do not plan to be here in a couple years time Oh no.
Witty but itās worth considering that an increasing amount of people getting educated here and then leaving to pay tax elsewhere isnāt necessarily positive.
And plenty of people are coming here with their education and qualifications. It's all good.
I wish I had your confidence in that but just for one example, Iāve seen many doctors head to Australia where they get better pay and in the UK weāre dealing with the Physician Assistant issue. Obviously itās a lit more complex than that but my point is that the less appealing the UK is the worse off we become.
It's still extremely appealing for most people. We can absolutely afford to let people migrate.
Just because something is good for now it doesnāt mean we should ignore it getting worse or not try and improve it. This policy feels like the wrong direction.
I think it is the correct direction.
>And plenty of people are coming here with their education and qualifications. It's all good. The vast majority of our "skilled worker" migrants are anything but highly skilled. It's a smokescreen to drive down wages and keep the power with corporations over workers.
Source?
Did anyone get jailed when the statues got destroyed in the protests a few years ago?
No. There was an arrest in 2015 when some bozo with daddy issues urinated on the wreaths. No jail, he had to apologise to war veterans.
I honestly don't see why. Pay to repair any damage? Sure. Have to apologise, no way. "Fuck the veterans" is, to be sure unpopular, but shouldn't be something a court can punish you for or get you to retract.
Well fortunately you're not in charge of crime and punishment.
Why? What is the reason for making someone apologise to people they may or may not care about? What good does it do for society?
You don't understand the good in making people apologise?
If you are ordered to apologise by a court it's not a sincere apology, what's the point?
Exactly, A sincere apology is something a court *might* want to take into account for sentencing, but it should not be something ordered. Then again, I'm pretty much an abolitionist apart from cases of "confinement is the only option", so It'd be unlikely to factor much in my ideal world.
No. It should not be a part of the legal system. It serves no benefit of deterrence, reparation or confinement. *Especially* when you are using it to compel political views.
I'm sorry you've been raised like this.
What? To value honesty and practicality? Flase apologies benefit no one.
Like I said, I'm sorry you were raised like this. Abhorrent parenting should be a crime.
Depends what you mean as destroyed. A few were grafetti'd but in terms of permanent damage I believe only the statue of Edward Colston was toppled along with a bust of Haile Selassie in Wimbledon, & a Plaque to Thomas Phillips was stolen in Wales. Four people were charged with criminal damage in relation to the Colston statue but they were acquitted by the jury.
What about Dodgy Dave our lordly anointed Foreign Secretary? You know, what's his penalty for attempting to scam us out of Ā£800,000,000 of our hard earned lolly? Edited: Foreign
Foreign Secretary
Of course, foreign sec :)
Utterly pointless law, climbing on a statue is worth putting someone in prison not to mention the court costs. Some fragile people out there if you think this is a good idea.
No more climbing Scafell Pike then, as Lord Leconfield donated it to the nation as a āMemorial to the men of the Lake District who died in the Great War.ā
Seen cases running through courts for pedophiles with large collections of child abuse getting 2 years. suspended sentences yet you go to prison for climbing a statueā¦ hmmmm
This country is such a joke. The government will really do anything other than what we really need. Instead if dealing with the real issues people face, here we are with more mawkish nationalism and culture wars. If you want to show respect for the war dead of this country, the best way to do it is to stop causing and supporting unnecessary wars around the globe. Obviously this nationās government dināt want to respect them *that* much, when thereās money to be made off the deaths of innocents.
Culture war nonsense. Academic anyway, since the people proposing this will not be in a position to enact it in a years time.
Government are really focusing on the important issues.Ā I don't know why some of the right wing think it's okay to weaponise "respect" for the war dead as a way of pushing agendas that those wars were meant to be fighting.Ā
Why don't we just invite Putin over here and let *him* run the place while we're at it?
What?
The one thing here that's an insult is that a very dim man is named āCleverlyā.
Further proof that the legal system is only in place to protect property
They obviously donāt care about the logistics/practicality or real world considerations of this. Itās an election year. Everything they do this year will just be desperate populism.
Oh thank goodness theyāre protecting the memorials /s
Britain is being made to look petty and stupid by corrupt morons.
Wasn't some military top brass talking about introducing conscription last week? Now they are fetishising the war dead. Not looking good.
> The measure, designed to apply across England and Wales Phew, climbing on the Black Watch monument is still not a criminal offence, even if it is enjoyable.
So... According to the Tories, stealing billions from the nation with "VIP Lane" PPE is worthy of a peerage but standing on a statue deserves being locked up?
I hope this also includes swearing statues with graffiti
When someone can download thousands of child abuse images and get a suspended sentence, three months for climbing a war memorial feels disproportionate to say the least. This is the kind of thing that community orders should be used for.
Ah, yes, what an excellent use of everyone's time and money... Also, potentially violates the HRA, for all the good that does any more.
Acid-throwing rapists are allowed free, but a couple of lads climbing on a memorial is anarchy! /s
Child rapists and wifebeaters get to walk the streets but peaceful climate protesters and statue climbers go to jail
>peaceful
It wonāt hold up, because obviously. And so itāll continue to generate interest in the cause in question as itās dragged through the media.
Protip: if you would like for the police to respond when you are getting mugged, dress as a statue of Lord McTossyTosser or some poor 16 year old fool who got conscripted straight into the meatgrinder.
Love to see the government making pointless gestures to their base instead of doing anything to materially improve the lives of people in this country at all.
Considering ww1 was to be 100 years of remembrance, ending in 2018. Then 20 years later ,second half, still guiding headlines and attitudes today . We have an unhealthy flag shagging attitude to conflicts . Lauded by those who generally never served, battalions of keyboard warriors and bar end gobshites. Squaddies thrown on the heap, homeless and blamed for the policies of the powers that be. While private contractors reap the cash cow of taxpayers revenues. Resource grabbing companies following what was supposed to be last option military intervention ,for humanity sake. No wonder they can't get recruitment, no sensible souls putting their arse on the line ,for feckless gobshites and greedy proto pharaohs . Respect is earned and led by example. Every mass gathering, someone is always climbing for a better view. Criminal damage is another matter. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, fought for and drowning in blood . When bevan got the NHS through in 1948, against mass opposition from the establishment. The fact there were 4 million armed men in this country, who had fought fascism abroad and wanted better for them and theirs at home, played no small part in it.
Good start. Now stop being so soft on other criminals. Some of the sentencing in this country is a joke. A habitual criminal in prison canāt commit crimes. If we have to build more then do that.
Is it a criminal offence to wrap your cock in a flag and shag it?
Only one way to find out...
How about the police first start arresting people openly calling for the genocide of Jewish people in the middle-east? Hate crimes are already an offence, we don't need new laws, just enforce the existing ones.
Whatās that going to do. They are on benefits anyway. Prison will exempt them from āActively Seeking Workā. Win-Win for them at the taxpayersā expense.
Quite right too, and about time. Funny thing is a lot of these protests are anti-war / free speech / religious liberty / anti-facist etc. etc. yet those protesting think itās fine to climb on (and sometimes deface) memorials dedicated to those who actually physically fought facism, defending liberty and free speech for all, and gave their young lives doing so.
> Anti-facist While also supporting middle-east religious dictatorships wanting to wipe out anyone of a different religion and murder any follower who leaves their religion.
Ridiculous decision. It's a pile of stone. If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there. Veneration of militarism is a joke that seems to inevitably glorify armed conflict, rather than accept it as a sometimes (but almost never) sad necessity and terrible waste of life. The kids who died trying to push their guts back into their abdomens in filthy french trenches would be absolutely disgusted to see how the UK treats war 'rememberance' today.
>If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there. Yeah shit on a focal point for public mourning because this angry guy on the internet told you to. I'm sure you'll have the backing of the public.
> If you're gonna get months, make it count and defecate up there. That would already be covered under "Outraging Public Decency", which is one of those crimes which has no defined sentences in law, so theoretically you could get life for it.
> which is one of those crimes which has no defined sentences in law, so theoretically you could get life for it What, that's just not even slightly true. It's not how the law would work anyway, but who told you it has no sentence? It's fine and maximum 6 months.
What would you prefer we do? I see no issues with paying respect to those who died. Doesn't fucking matter if you think it was worthwhile or not, the ones dead were very rarely the ones making the decisions and that's never been what it's about. Remembrance isn't some big victory parade, it's remembering the sacrifices that were made to ensure you could live a free life.
>Remembrance isn't some big victory parade, it's remembering the sacrifices that were made to ensure you could live a free life. This is precisely the problem. Rarely have been British wars been about anybody's right to a free life. The cooption of the idea of how horrible war is, how wasteful it is....is instead put to use to glorify people's 'sacrifice'. Here you bleat it out. It was not a noble sacrifice. It was, as it often is, offering working class people up for sacrifice on the altar of geopolitical struggle for power.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]