United Kingdom

4065 readers

371 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

UK judge cast doubt on the existence of climate crisis (extinctionrebellion.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9678117

Judge Silas Reid’s climate change scepticism came during an ongoing trial at Inner London Crown Court that began on Monday 19th February, regarding five women from Extinction Rebellion in the UK. Giving directions to the jury ahead of their deliberations, Reid said: “It is important to note that the circumstances which are relevant are those of the damage and not other circumstances… The circumstances of the damage do not include any climate crisis which may or may not exist in the world at the moment nor does it include whether nonviolent direct action can prompt change."

Judge Reid famously imprisoned one of the defendants currently on trial, Amy Pritchard, along with others, for mentioning the words ‘climate change’ whilst on trial last year. The report references UK courts’ attitudes to climate and environmental activists:: “They have forbidden protesters from mentioning climate change, thereby preventing them from explaining the reasons for their protest. Courts have held convicted environmental defenders who disregarded this prohibition in ‘contempt of court’ and imprisoned them for up to eight weeks.”

Judge Reid's newly expressed doubts about the reality came on the same day as the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Michel Forst, released his latest report claiming that "state repression of environmental protest and civil disobedience" would pose "a major threat to human rights and democracy."

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

I guess we'll have to start calling it the environmental calamity? or how about we're-all-going-to-boil-to-death-because-of-dumb-fucks-that-are-too-stupid-to-be-allowed-anywhere-near-positions-of-power or is that a tad too long?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

😧

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

While it clearly points him as an idiot. Who likely is unqualified mentally to evaluate evidence.

I do not see that the existence of the climate crisis or not. Has any relevance on the case.

The case is entirly about if the right to protest allows for intentional property damage.

The right to protest is not in anyway effected by the truth of your argument. Climate change disbelievers have the same right to object to government actions as do believers. Truth has no effect on the right to show disagreement. Just hopefully the willingness for other to listen.

The only point the judge should care about is dose that right allow a protester to damage another person's / organisations property.