If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Peace Activists found not guilty on criminal damage charges
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From the Beeb
Excellent, I'm well pleased with this verdict. A few years ago I would probably have been a bit wary of such action, but it has been made emphatically clear in this country that, when it comes to foreign policy representation is a joke. I particularly agree with such actions when the government won't reign in the excesses of profitable organisations, such as BAE systems (but thats another story).
I wasn't at all offended that they got arrested (thats well, kind of the point I guess) but if they'd gotten prison sentences it would have been ridiculous.
Excellent, I'm well pleased with this verdict. A few years ago I would probably have been a bit wary of such action, but it has been made emphatically clear in this country that, when it comes to foreign policy representation is a joke. I particularly agree with such actions when the government won't reign in the excesses of profitable organisations, such as BAE systems (but thats another story).
I wasn't at all offended that they got arrested (thats well, kind of the point I guess) but if they'd gotten prison sentences it would have been ridiculous.
0
Comments
We broke into another country, same logic?
we deceared war on another country, they pretty much commited an act of treason.
Legally I don't doubt you are right; but 'we' declared war on another country? About a million people in London would have disagreed a while back, and the decision to go to war has to be one of the gravest decisions any mandated government can take. It was done arbitrarily and without a UN mandate, let alone domestic consent.
I'm not arguing that it was legal; I'm arguing it was morally defensible. And its not just about Iraqi's; the one thing I believe passionately that I don't really hear too much about is opposition to this insane war on behalf of those actually serving.
The way I see it, many service personel choose for a host of reasons to enter the armed services, in service of their country, of which we are a constituent part as citizens. In their defence of use, they neccesarily surrender some of their autonomy to the system that is supposed to defend us. But this shouldn't be a one-way street; we have a duty as free citizens to them as those who serve our interests.
That duty is to make sure they are not put in harms way unless absolutely necessary. If that b52 being out of commission meant that no-one died, anyone, I would be very happy with that outcome.
ok, just to save like a million more messages im going to skip the whole iraq right/wrong thing,
what im saying is that if somebody brakes into a milltry base then they shouldnt be arested, they simple should be shot
I agree with the military covenant but to be honest if when I was serving someone had sabotaged a piece of equipment which I might one day rely on to save my life I wouldn't have been exactly estatic....
the same didn't happen when peace protestors broke into an air base when we were "helping" the situation in east timor...they got sent down for 5 years...
http://www.inlap.freeuk.com/ploughsh.htm
But I'm probably forgetting another case
^
They were acquitted iirc
Proportional response?
Well quite, but I would contend that the likelyhood, in this particular situation, was that it would have been disabled. I can't imagine that any damage they could have inflicted would have been missed by pre-flight checks.
I'm not neccesarily saying that this was the absolute BEST way to go about things, but in the current situation representation is not working, and lawful protest is not only being ignored, but our right to it eroded.
You are a nasty wee shite aren't you?
not at all, but I believe that there is a reason why military bases are guarded by Armed Soldiers, and seeing someone breaking in carrying weapons and bags of “coloured liquid” im surprised that the soldiers didn’t open fire.
and what’s wrong with debating a subject without having to throw personal insult around just because you don’t agree with me?
Welcome to Posturing and Berate.
Same logic.
Isn't it the other way round - they don't have to show anything, the prosecution has to prove its case. The legal grounds would then be that the CPS couldn't prove its case to the satisfaction of the jury...
According to the BBC they were being tried on conspiracy to commit criminal damage and as I haven't sat through the trial so I don't know the exact details, but I could imagine a scenario where they pleaded not guilty, refused to admit in court they were planning criminal damage (and in their eyes they would be right) and the prosecution was unable to show beyond reasonable doubt that they were planning to do so,
Paint, staples and nails aren't a case on their own and neither is trespass. Its pretty strong circumstantial evidence I grant, (after all they could have been planning to daub paint on their shirts and then nail these shirts to a wooden rail - with the staples as an emergency stopgap for nails).
If you were asking me to convict on beyond reasonable doubt I'd want more, especially for conspiracy (which is basically you were planning to commit a crime, but didn't).
Alternatively it could be as the men seem to be saying that the jury believe that sabotage of military aircraft which are potentially going to be used in a war the jury members saw as unjust isn't classed as criminal damage, but reasonable force.
British servicemen are being used not as defenders, but as pawns in an Imperial project, Iraqis are seeing their civilisation fall down around their ears, literally.
There aren't career hooli's who practice their brick-throwing technique on their days off, they're conscientious tax-paying people like you and me.
Should they be lauded too, or charged with murder?
Really, although I feel for their sentiments, it's completely the wrong way to go about rotesting and they should have been found guilty, and been punished. This is sending out a message that a crime is ok if the ends justify the means.
Lets just hope the majority see these as a pair of miscreants rather than try and copy cat and start sabotaging police stations, the houses of parliament. Hell, what about shooting people 'cos they were going to do something bad'. Ludicrous really.
I suspect it's because of the anti-war sentiment in the country that the jury found them not guilty.
As a member of the jury you should only be swung by the guilt or innocence of the accused - not your political views on the Iraq war. To use an extreme example what if someone was on trial because they had beaten to death the next door neighbour who'd raped their five year old daughter - should they be found not guilty because jurors feel sympathetic to them?
Yes, what i was thinking.
And I think the people involved in both cases are incredible.
Possibly, I didn't think of it. Still, committing a crime because of a crime is still committing a crime. Two wrongs don't make a right etc.
Would you say the law is open to interpretation then? That if there's something we don't like, we should feel free to break the law in order to protest?
Even so, sabotaging a planes engines is really stupid. What if they fail mid flight?
Really, I feel for them and what they're arguing for, but I think it's a real shame they've not been put in prison, and thinks its more a shame that some people think of them as heroes rather than saboteurs.
A system that bases its legitimacy on mandated rule by popular consent, has its legitimacy undermined when it acts in the manner which it has. What do the public do when their normal avenues of participation in formal politics are denied them?