2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have since read the details of his arrest. I am happy to confirm that it bears no similarities whatsoever with the case I mentioned other than they both took place outside a court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

 

   They were both trying to influences a Courts decision .

Both Holding placards up outside Courts for the jurors to read hoping to influences the courts decision 

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Thunberg's activism, which began with solitary protests outside the Swedish parliament in 2018, has since inspired a global youth movement demanding urgent action to address the climate crisis.

If the "global youth" could afford million dollar beach-front properties on the ocean like the Obamas, the Bidens, and the Gores, then they probably would be jet-setting (like the Obamas, the Bidens, and the Gores) and enjoying a nice beach-front BBQ with their billionaire buddies (and don't think for a moment that the little curmudgeon Greta isn't part of The Club).
Instead?
Most of these kids have no future, they aren't going to own a house unless they inherit one from mummy and daddy, and for that matter most probably can't afford an EV without going so far into debt as to be unable to pay the student loan debts no less eat broccoli and kale at $10/pound.  So?  Why not sit on the road blocking traffic and clamoring about how the Obamas, the Bidens, and the Gores beachfront properties will be underwater by 2030 (expect those properties will be high and dry as none of them could obtain property or title insurance if "the melting of the polar ice caps flooding the world apocalypse" was really going to happen - but don't tell the kiddies that - ignorance is bliss).

Mace them every time. They'll soon stop protesting.

 

The Swedish doom goblin strikes again ….. how dare she

Funny, all the triggered rightwing-snowflakes, scared to death by a little girl from sweden..

30 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   They were both trying to influences a Courts decision .

Both Holding placards up outside Courts for the jurors to read hoping to influences the courts decision 

 

No, he was deliberately flouting a reporting ban by live streaming the events and aggressively filming the defendants when he already knew that there were restrictions in place against doing so. He was not holding a banner which stated a fact of law; he was holding a camera contrary to an earlier ruling by the judge. So you see, you are still wrong.

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

attempted to block a major highway

They all should go to jail.

Maybe start with a week of jail. And if they do it again, a month in jail, 6 months next, ...

At some point they should be able to understand the concept.

By now little Greta is also old enough to understand those things.

 

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

She was holding a sign which started a fact of law. Do you not think that it's important that jurors are made aware of the law? Would you prefer that they made decisions in ignorance?

I believe jurors are informed by the judge, at the beginning of the trial, to only take into account what happens inside the court.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

She is tenacious and trying to change things for the better. She should be applauded for that. 

Very good to see she's getting on people's nerves.

I would have thought protesters aims are the complete opposite.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have since read the details of his arrest. I am happy to confirm that it bears no similarities whatsoever with the case I mentioned other than they both took place outside a court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Excellent. Glad you've cleared up the reason both were arrested.

 

It's called "contempt of court".

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I believe jurors are informed by the judge, at the beginning of the trial, to only take into account what happens inside the court.

 

Evidence - they are instructed only to take into account evidence presented to them in court. The accused in this case was not providing any comment on the facts of that particular case. She was making clear an aspect of the law.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Evidence - they are instructed only to take into account evidence presented to them in court. The accused in this case was not providing any comment on the facts of that particular case. She was making clear an aspect of the law.

Jurors don't get told the law in court? How strange. I wonder how the u derstand the charge and come to a decision.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Excellent. Glad you've cleared up the reason both were arrested.

 

It's called "contempt of court".

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the charge against the wife beating fraudster and drug dealer, Yaxley Lennon, was justified. But in the case of the retired social worker, I would happily argue that the law, if applied correctly in this case, is an ass. In fact, it's a dangerous ass.

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the charge against the wife beating fraudster and drug dealer, Yaxley Lennon, was justified. But in the case of the retired social worker, I would happily argue that the law, if applied correctly in this case, is an ass. In fact, it's a dangerous ass.

If one person is arrested for a crime because of what people think of them, then another is not arrested because of their previous career, that would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination is a terrible thing. Which ever way you look at it.

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If one person is arrested for a crime because of what people think of them, then another is not arrested because of their previous career, that would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination is a terrible thing. Which ever way you look at it.

Fully agreed, but totally irrelevant to my post.

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

Thunberg, known for her unwavering climate advocacy

 

Except when it comes to demonstrating in China.

45 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

What a s(t)upid comment.. She is still "little" in stature. Also, she has been an activist since she was 15, and they were as scared of her then as they are now.

The rich, who are the ones mostly responsible for climate change, cutting down millions of trees, are all making money on doing things which are hurting the environment. This has been happening for a very long time and our earth's had enough of it. If there were more like here, of course doing everything they can not to break the law, more people would be interested and get behind her to make changes.

 

A lot of people just a decade or two back said there isn't any climate change but I saw this coming as soon as they started on the Amazon Basin. Besides this, over harvesting and wasting a lot of species of fish just to get a select few is hurting the ocean, and when that runs out, we're in deep doodoo. They're still hunting whales, which is an abominable practice by ignorants who only care about profit, and not what they're doing to the ecosystem.

 

The protests here in this country are always shut down to stop talk about democracy. the rich elite want control, just as dictators do, and will kill to get those that protest quieted. They are scared of anyone who resists what they stand for.

 

"When a leader speaks, that leader dies". a line from the Cult of Personality song. The government surely killed John Kennedy and may have been involved in others. The rich want to stay rich, along with their friends, and there's only a couple of ways to stop them from ruining the earth for the rest of us, although one way is quite radical. We only have one earth, and if they're allowed to continue the rape, it won't be here for our grandchildren. I think what she's doing, although it might come with some problems, is commendable. People are scared of her because they aren't wanting to change their way of living.

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

No, he was deliberately flouting a reporting ban by live streaming the events and aggressively filming the defendants when he already knew that there were restrictions in place against doing so. He was not holding a banner which stated a fact of law; he was holding a camera contrary to an earlier ruling by the judge. So you see, you are still wrong.

 

    They were both outside a Court trying to influence a judges/jurors decision .

Whether Tommy was getting his message across by holding a banner or shouting the words through a microphone is quite irrelevant 

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

Fully agreed, but totally irrelevant to my post.

It is totally relevant. You condemn one but condone the other.

19 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

Projecting much are we..?

Sorry, you will have to explain that one..........🤭

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the charge against the wife beating fraudster and drug dealer, Yaxley Lennon, was justified. But in the case of the retired social worker, I would happily argue that the law, if applied correctly in this case, is an ass. In fact, it's a dangerous ass.

 

   So people that you agree with should be allowed to beak laws , but people you don't like should be arrested for breaking laws ?

   Very  left wing mindset 

So it takes 6 policemen to handle 19 year old girl...

1 minute ago, SpaceKadet said:

So it takes 6 policemen to handle 19 year old girl...

With care, yes.............And a bit stronger at 21.........😉

1 minute ago, transam said:

With care, yes.............And a bit stronger at 21.........😉

OK, 21 but still...

I wonder if Thunberg has experienced any psychological problems from being famous for five minutes then suddenly completely irrelevant?  It seemed like she was "the voice of her generation" when she gave her "how dare you?!" speech.  Now nobody cares.

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Fears over right to protest after woman with sign at climate trial prosecuted

Civil liberty campaigners have warned that the prosecution of a woman for holding up a placard about the rights of jurors outside a court is part of the government’s increasing attacks on the right to protest.

 

Crazy left-wingers, always lying.  🙄

 

The woman had a sign saying "Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscious", so literally trying to pressure the jurors to deliver the verdict she wanted in the case being tried.

43 minutes ago, transam said:

Sorry, you will have to explain that one..........🤭

That means, this whole thing you have going on here is all happening in your mind, and you are then projecting it onto others...

8 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Crazy left-wingers, always lying.  🙄

 

The woman had a sign saying "Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscious", so literally trying to pressure the jurors to deliver the verdict she wanted in the case being tried.

 

Are you normally so quick to resort to insulating those whose opinions you disagree with? 

 

She was not trying to put pressure on anyone. She was making a point of law. What she said was absolute, recorded fact, nothing more.

55 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It is totally relevant. You condemn one but condone the other.

Indeed - one was deliberately flouting a court order, the other was highlighting a published point of law.

47 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   So people that you agree with should be allowed to beak laws , but people you don't like should be arrested for breaking laws ?

   Very  left wing mindset 

 

Why do you feel the need to twist points? Surely if your words had merit, you wouldn't need to twist them so?