295
Greta Thunberg: Case thrown because of 'no evidence' (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 115 points 2 years ago (18 children)

Good.

They've been working hard to criminise protests, so this may make them think twice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    How would this make them think twice? There weren't any consequences for them for unlawful arrest and they still got to inconvenience protesters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    It was going to be the high level conviction that would make the news and be a shot across the bows of anyone else who protested and it failed, miserably. The CPS and everyone else involved are going to have to consider each new case now because the chances of conviction don't look good.

    they still got to inconvenience protesters

    Most protestors these days are prepared for inconvenience (some go out of their way to courter arrest in order to make a bigger splash), it's a whole different ballgame if you could be looking at a criminal conviction for not doing much at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

    It's the CPS that may think twice about the prospect of prosecution, and the police are going to be pretty loathe to arrest if prosecutions are unsuccessful,

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    What? Police have no issue arresting people regardless of the conviction possibilities. They literally could not care less. Arresting people is just part of their day at the office.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    That’s really not how it works. If there’s little prospect of prosecution they simply aren’t going to bother with the time expense and resources to arrest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Perhaps under normal circumstances, but arrest alone is enough of a deterrent for a lot of people. Plus some cops will arrest people just because the people pissed them off. They know no criminal charges will come of it, but they also know it'll inconvenience the person for at least 4 hours and ruin their day.

    What time and expense? The cops and the jail staff are there regardless of arresting people or not. It costs them nothing additional to arrest you. The expense is part of their regular operational budget.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    The expense is part of their regular operational budget.

    Which is limited

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What I'm saying is that it doesn't cost them any more money to go out and arrest a bunch of people, than it does to sit at a donut shop stuffing their faces. They get paid either way, as do the people running the jails. Their budget isn't affected by what they do during the course of a shift.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    They have a certain amount of money that they have to spent on operational work. The police and crime commissioners/mayor depending on region absolutely look at arrests v conviction rates and will give the Chief Constable a hard time if they are arresting people without hope of conviction, telling them instead to focus on priorities. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we don't see the criteria for arrest to be tweaked a bit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Did they think twice with Rwanda?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Rwanda is a flagship policy that says more about their intent rather than their ability to make it work. They'll keep flogging that dead horse until they are winkled out of office.

    This seems a poor policy that even those tasked with enforcing it didn't want and they can quietly forget about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    What it says most is that Suella Braverman wants to continue her father's business of running concentration camps in Africa.

    Her dad, who for some reason has a Hispanic name, is of Goan Indian descent but born and raised in Kenya. In 1960, during the Mau Mau uprising under which Kenya gained independence from the UK, he somehow was granted a UK passport - while the rest of his family fled back to India. Upon arriving to the UK, he landed a job as head of a housing association. Now, his daughter is an MP.

    I've struggled to find hard evidence to confirm anything beyond the last paragraph, but it seems like there is a massive evidence-shaped hole that points to Braverman's father running a British concentration camp in Kenya, one of many with horrible conditions that prompted Kenya's revolution for independence.

    Lately, the Tory government have neglected in processing migrants from the UK, instead opting to house them in hotels (often owned by party donors, and at UK taxpayer's expense). Many of these people could have long been deported from our shores, but doing that would reduce the potential stockpile of people they could put into the proposed Rwanda concentration camps.

    These are for profit businesses, run in a foreign country, which the UK taxpayer is paying to set up and accommodate. Furthermore, section 16.1 of the Rwanda deal says "the UK will accept 'vulnerable migrants' from Rwanda in return for those sent to Rwanda". When pressed on the House of Lords, the government has refused to comment on how many migrants the government will be taking in return. Is it 1 for 1? More? Less? That is not defined.

    They're still fucking stealing from us. We're paying their court bills and their salaries while they set up their tax haven businesses that the UK society will see a significant net cost from, with very little benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 44 points 2 years ago

    The crime is inconveniencing rich oil executives, duh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago

    Thank god there's some actual justice in this world, somewhere. How ridiculous to arrest people having a peaceful protest, especially in regard to a subject that should concern everyone. I hope she continues to prosper and get famous for standing up against tyranny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    "It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in," he said.

    "There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life."

    He said that the protest was "throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent" and criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location of where the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was "made by an abseiling protester".

    Really called out the cops on their bullshit there. Polite but direct. I like it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] [B] 16 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Greta Thunberg and four co-defendants have been found not guilty of breaking the law when they refused to follow police instructions to move on during a climate protest.

    District Judge John Laws threw out a public order charge due to "no evidence" and added police attempted to impose "unlawful" conditions during a protest.

    The court heard that protesters started to gather near the hotel in October last year at around 07:30 and police engaged with them about improving access for members of the public, which the prosecution alleged had been made "impossible".

    The judge rejected the submission as "the main entrance was accessible (meaning) that the condition... was unnecessary when the defendants were arrested".

    Ms Thunberg appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court after previously denying breaching the Public Order Act 1986.

    Ms Thunberg appeared at court along with two Fossil Free London protesters and two Greenpeace activists, who also pleaded not guilty to the same offence.

    The original article contains 352 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    There's no fucking way that judge's real name is John Law

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •