Just Stop Soup

Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

2024-09-27 16:10:40 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-27 16:16:06 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Roger Hayter

2024-09-27 17:22:45 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Or Opium producers for producing opiates or tobacco producers for producing
tobacco. As we know, a great deal of legal, and indeed military in the former
case, penalties are applied to both, despite their products actually having
considerable legal use.

--
Roger Hayter

2024-09-27 16:45:21 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?

It's just the blame culture we have in this country. Blame other people,
instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-27 22:47:10 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?
It's just the blame culture we have in this country. Blame other people,
instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

If anyone has ever missed the point more than that, I haven't seen it.

2024-09-28 11:15:50 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?
It's just the blame culture we have in this country. Blame other people,
instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

If anyone has ever missed the point more than that, I haven't seen it.

If I have missed the point you wanted to make, then perhaps you should
explain it better?

At any rate, it's inappropriate to be downright rude about it.

JNugent

2024-09-28 12:57:32 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?
It's just the blame culture we have in this country. Blame other people,
instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

If anyone has ever missed the point more than that, I haven't seen it.

He was surely referring to the views of people who blame the producers
of legal foodstuffs for its (alleged) over-consumption by er... consumers.

On a similar tack, perhaps NATO should bomb China, India, Brazil,
Zimbabwe and the iconic Cuba in order prevent lung cancer?

[Not sure about Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee, mind.]

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 13:53:26 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?

Given the obvious answers to both questions are "yes, but also the
question is irrelevant", I'm unclear as to why you asked them.

2024-09-28 14:39:56 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?

Given the obvious answers to both questions are "yes, but also the
question is irrelevant", I'm unclear as to why you asked them.

I walk every day. No oil company stops me. I walk to destinations where
other people would take the car. It's just nonsensical to say that's not
true.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 16:23:57 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?

Given the obvious answers to both questions are "yes, but also the
question is irrelevant", I'm unclear as to why you asked them.

I walk every day. No oil company stops me. I walk to destinations where
other people would take the car. It's just nonsensical to say that's not
true.

And yet millions of other people don't. It's just nonsensical to
say that's not true.

Come on, this isn't hard to understand. I said it quite explicitly
above: "people in general". We're talking about statistics of the
whole population, not what you personally are doing this afternoon.

2024-09-29 11:50:07 UTC

We are going round in circles here, because some of us are not
distinguishing between cause and effect.

You, Jon, are postulating that the availability of oil causes people to
use it.

I am postulating that the demand for oil causes it to be available.

However, it's a fairly pointless argument, as we both agree that people
should stop using oil.

For example, JSO are against the granting of new oil production licences
in this country. But, that's incredibly stupid, as it leads to higher
oil consumption and more CO2! They are an incredibly muddle-headed lot,
and nobody would give them the time of day, were it not for their silly
stunts.

JNugent

2024-09-29 13:16:01 UTC

Post by GB
We are going round in circles here, because some of us are not
distinguishing between cause and effect.
You, Jon, are postulating that the availability of oil causes people to
use it.
I am postulating that the demand for oil causes it to be available.

It's certainly hard to envisage the existence and operations of the oil
extraction and distribution industries without existing and predictable
demand.

Post by GB
However, it's a fairly pointless argument, as we both agree that people
should stop using oil.
For example, JSO are against the granting of new oil production licences
in this country. But, that's incredibly stupid, as it leads to higher
oil consumption and more CO2! They are an incredibly muddle-headed lot,
and nobody would give them the time of day, were it not for their silly
stunts.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-29 14:11:02 UTC

Post by GB
We are going round in circles here, because some of us are not
distinguishing between cause and effect.
You, Jon, are postulating that the availability of oil causes people to
use it.

No, you're still missing my point completely, which is that companies
which have become rich and powerful use some of that power and wealth
to increase the demand for their product, by both fair means and foul.

Post by GB
I am postulating that the demand for oil causes it to be available.
However, it's a fairly pointless argument, as we both agree that people
should stop using oil.
For example, JSO are against the granting of new oil production licences
in this country. But, that's incredibly stupid, as it leads to higher
oil consumption and more CO2! They are an incredibly muddle-headed lot,
and nobody would give them the time of day, were it not for their silly
stunts.

Um, what? How does reducing the supply of oil cause an increase in the
consumption of oil?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-28 17:47:09 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Do sugar producers force-feed people? Do oil companies stop people
walking or cycling?

Given the obvious answers to both questions are "yes, but also the
question is irrelevant", I'm unclear as to why you asked them.

I walk every day. No oil company stops me. I walk to destinations where
other people would take the car. It's just nonsensical to say that's not
true.

Disproof would require statistics, not one unusual anecdote. I don't think the
proposition was that oil companies stop all people walking ever; though I
believe it is quite close to that in American suburbia.

--
Roger Hayter

Andy Burns

2024-09-28 18:46:56 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
one unusual anecdote

Is Roland OK?

Jeff

2024-09-28 08:57:42 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

No, it is down to food producers putting too much sugar in their
products in order to feed the sweet tooth that the population has been
weaned on to, and the population eating too much of it.
The sugar producers and food manufacturers are only supplying what the
population wants. You need to kill the demand, not blame the producers;
the same applies to drugs, look how effective drugs policies have been
when targeting the suppliers.

Jeff

Jethro_uk

2024-09-28 11:18:58 UTC

look how effective drugs policies have been when targeting the
suppliers.

The only meaningful metric is a reduction in addicts and harm rather than
an increase in seizures .... the latter just encourages the police to do
more performative - and totally useless - "swooping".

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 13:46:08 UTC

Post by Jeff

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Oh ok, jolly good. Do let us know when your mind control machine is ready.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-28 14:02:16 UTC

Post by Jeff

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

Oh ok, jolly good. Do let us know when your mind control machine is ready.

The usual method is raising taxes. However, this only worked for tobacco
because a sufficient proportion of voters were in favour of it.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-28 12:38:52 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

That conjures up an amusing, if sinister, vision.

"Sugar producers" [Boo! Hiss!] should be producing less er... sugar, so
that less of it can be consumed.

Yeah... right.

And what will the effect of that be (with particular reference to the
white market and black market prices of sugar)?

Pancho

2024-09-28 17:39:20 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

While I understand and accept your point, oil production is
fundamentally different and worse than sugar production. Use of oil
negatively impacts third parties (global warming). So oil producers are
more like weapons manufactures, or even tobacco companies (if one
accepts the problems of second hand smoking). Where as, sugar tends to
only harm the person consuming the sugar.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 20:12:30 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out sugar production is
environmentally unfriendly or involves stealing land from
indiginous peoples or something. And also it wasn't my
analogy ;-)

Roger Hayter

2024-09-28 22:02:38 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out sugar production is
environmentally unfriendly or involves stealing land from
indiginous peoples or something. And also it wasn't my
analogy ;-)

It causes traffic jams in East Anglia because the farmers are too mean to hire
proper hauliers, despite their huge subsidies.

--
Roger Hayter

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 22:10:15 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out sugar production is
environmentally unfriendly or involves stealing land from
indiginous peoples or something. And also it wasn't my
analogy ;-)

It causes traffic jams in East Anglia because the farmers are too mean
to hire proper hauliers, despite their huge subsidies.

We heard it here first: "Sugar causes jams".

Davey

2024-09-29 07:50:47 UTC

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 22:10:15 -0000 (UTC)

On 28 Sep 2024 at 21:12:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens"

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming
sugar producers because you are fat, rather than stopping
feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general
eating too much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of
"capitalism".

While I understand and accept your point, oil production is
fundamentally different and worse than sugar production. Use of
oil negatively impacts third parties (global warming). So oil
producers are more like weapons manufactures, or even tobacco
companies (if one accepts the problems of second hand smoking).
Where as, sugar tends to only harm the person consuming the
sugar.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out sugar production is
environmentally unfriendly or involves stealing land from
indiginous peoples or something. And also it wasn't my
analogy ;-)

It causes traffic jams in East Anglia because the farmers are too
mean to hire proper hauliers, despite their huge subsidies.

We heard it here first: "Sugar causes jams".

There's something sweet about that comment.

--
Davey.

Spike

2024-09-29 09:59:42 UTC

Post by Davey
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 22:10:15 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Roger Hayter
It causes traffic jams in East Anglia because the farmers are too
mean to hire proper hauliers, despite their huge subsidies.

We heard it here first: "Sugar causes jams".

There's something sweet about that comment.

--
Spike

kat

2024-09-29 14:02:55 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out sugar production is
environmentally unfriendly or involves stealing land from
indiginous peoples or something. And also it wasn't my
analogy ;-)

It causes traffic jams in East Anglia because the farmers are too mean
to hire proper hauliers, despite their huge subsidies.

We heard it here first: "Sugar causes jams".

Useful for making them.

--
kat

Post by Jon Ribbens
^..^<

billy bookcase

2024-09-29 09:36:21 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

While I understand and accept your point, oil production is fundamentally different and
worse than sugar production. Use of oil negatively impacts third parties (global
warming). So oil producers are more like weapons manufactures, or even tobacco
companies (if one accepts the problems of second hand smoking). Where as, sugar tends
to only harm the person consuming the sugar.

More than half of all sugar cane globally, is still cut by hand*. Mostly in the
third world. Although doubtless they're still grateful for the odd diesel driven
tractor, lorry, or train which saves then having to drag it all the way to the
nearest port to be loaded onto a London bound dhow.

bb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane

AnthonyL

2024-09-29 12:01:03 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

No, it's like blaming sugar producers for people in general eating too
much sugar. Which is correct - you may have heard of "capitalism".

144 products made from petroleum:

https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

The Todal

2024-09-27 17:30:42 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil production,
rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar producers because
you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf

I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

2024-09-27 17:39:06 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-27 23:09:47 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

Jeff Layman

2024-09-28 07:54:17 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

I think that award actually goes to Leonardo da Vinci, with Michelangelo
second.

But then, of course, everyone's an expert when it comes to opinions.
Also, there are a lot more paintings by Van Gogh available to throw soup
over, and throwing soup over the Mona Lisa is old hat
(<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68121654>). A real coup would
be the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but it would require a pretty strong arm
to reach that.

--
Jeff

Davey

2024-09-28 07:56:54 UTC

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 08:54:17 +0100

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge
is apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many
people who think the sentences were too severe. These women were
idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the
sentencing, activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh
paintings. If I had been present in that gallery, I would have
been tempted to give them a good kicking. Perhaps that's an
unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used
oils, but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not
complicated.

I think that award actually goes to Leonardo da Vinci, with
Michelangelo second.
But then, of course, everyone's an expert when it comes to opinions.
Also, there are a lot more paintings by Van Gogh available to throw
soup over, and throwing soup over the Mona Lisa is old hat
(<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68121654>). A real coup
would be the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but it would require a pretty
strong arm to reach that.

Don't give them ideas, please!

--
Davey.

The Todal

2024-09-28 10:00:02 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

But what exactly are the headlines that they hoped to create from their
actions?

"We can fuck up famous paintings whenever we want and there's no way you
can stop us. This proves that the petroleum industry threatens the
existence of the world".

Is it really much different from "we can set fire to police cars and
buses and there's no way you can stop us and this proves that
immigration urgently needs to be reduced"?

In the case of the van Gogh paintings, there will be many who would
agree with the statement falsely attributed to Goering: when I hear the
word "culture" I reach for my revolver. Paintings are for rich people
and posh people. We don't go to art galleries, we go to football matches.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 13:43:23 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

But what exactly are the headlines that they hoped to create from their
actions?

Why does it matter? What matters is that there *are* headlines.
Peacefully standing around outside government buildings, or marching
through the streets of London, tends to be utterly ignored by the media,
so it's completely ineffective. What Just Stop Oil are doing, however,
reliably makes the news.

Post by The Todal
"We can fuck up famous paintings whenever we want and there's no way you
can stop us. This proves that the petroleum industry threatens the
existence of the world".
Is it really much different from "we can set fire to police cars and
buses and there's no way you can stop us and this proves that
immigration urgently needs to be reduced"?

Well, er, yes. There's no violence or rioting involved, and nobody
is put in fear for their lives. That seems like quite a significant
difference to me.

Post by The Todal
In the case of the van Gogh paintings, there will be many who would
agree with the statement falsely attributed to Goering: when I hear the
word "culture" I reach for my revolver. Paintings are for rich people
and posh people. We don't go to art galleries, we go to football matches.

Even better for Just Stop Oil then, if you're right that people don't
actually care about the paintings. The headlines appear nonetheless.

The Todal

2024-09-28 14:05:25 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

But what exactly are the headlines that they hoped to create from their
actions?

Well, er, yes. There's no violence or rioting involved, and nobody
is put in fear for their lives. That seems like quite a significant
difference to me.

As the trial judge pointed out:

quote

Secondly, I reject any suggestion that your offending can
properly be described as peaceful or non-violent. Throwing the
contents of a tin of soup in somebody’s face would not be a peaceful
act, and there is nothing peaceful about throwing the contents of
tins of soup at a painting in an art gallery, with members of the
public, including children, present.

unquote

I agree with the judge but I am sure many people will disagree.

Even better for Just Stop Oil then, if you're right that people don't
actually care about the paintings. The headlines appear nonetheless.

I think a much better protest would be to go to a public library, remove
many handfuls of books, and burn them in a heap outside the library in
the view of journalists and TV cameras. Whilst displaying the usual
"Just Stop Oil" shirts.

Burning books has in the past been an act of protest that has definitely
made history. Anyway, they can always be reprinted. Usually.

Another option would be to damage and destroy antique statues in museums
using sledgehammers and drills. It would send a valuable message to the
world, that those who admire or worship old statues should be turning
their attention to the future of humanity and the planet.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-28 15:26:45 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

But what exactly are the headlines that they hoped to create from their
actions?

Well, er, yes. There's no violence or rioting involved, and nobody
is put in fear for their lives. That seems like quite a significant
difference to me.

quote
Secondly, I reject any suggestion that your offending can
properly be described as peaceful or non-violent. Throwing the
contents of a tin of soup in somebody’s face would not be a peaceful
act, and there is nothing peaceful about throwing the contents of
tins of soup at a painting in an art gallery, with members of the
public, including children, present.
unquote
I agree with the judge but I am sure many people will disagree.

His comments are utterly stupid. "If you had done something, that you
did not in fact do, it would have been violent, but you didn't, so it
wasn't, but I'm going to harangue you as if you did and it was."

Even better for Just Stop Oil then, if you're right that people don't
actually care about the paintings. The headlines appear nonetheless.

I think a much better protest would be to go to a public library, remove
many handfuls of books, and burn them in a heap outside the library in
the view of journalists and TV cameras. Whilst displaying the usual
"Just Stop Oil" shirts.
Burning books has in the past been an act of protest that has definitely
made history. Anyway, they can always be reprinted. Usually.
Another option would be to damage and destroy antique statues in museums
using sledgehammers and drills. It would send a valuable message to the
world, that those who admire or worship old statues should be turning
their attention to the future of humanity and the planet.

So you think Just Stop Oil should cause actual damage, rather than just
headlines? Seems like a bad idea to me.

The Todal

2024-09-28 16:10:25 UTC

Post by The Todal
quote
Secondly, I reject any suggestion that your offending can
properly be described as peaceful or non-violent. Throwing the
contents of a tin of soup in somebody’s face would not be a peaceful
act, and there is nothing peaceful about throwing the contents of
tins of soup at a painting in an art gallery, with members of the
public, including children, present.
unquote
I agree with the judge but I am sure many people will disagree.

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons, they threw soup at an important work of art,
damaging the valuable historic frame and recklessly risking damage to
the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the glass and made
contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more damage was not
caused, but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that
they couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

It's like throwing a stone at your face and then claiming that because
it only glanced off your coat, you didn't commit a crime of violence.

Even better for Just Stop Oil then, if you're right that people don't
actually care about the paintings. The headlines appear nonetheless.

I think a much better protest would be to go to a public library, remove
many handfuls of books, and burn them in a heap outside the library in
the view of journalists and TV cameras. Whilst displaying the usual
"Just Stop Oil" shirts.
Burning books has in the past been an act of protest that has definitely
made history. Anyway, they can always be reprinted. Usually.
Another option would be to damage and destroy antique statues in museums
using sledgehammers and drills. It would send a valuable message to the
world, that those who admire or worship old statues should be turning
their attention to the future of humanity and the planet.

So you think Just Stop Oil should cause actual damage, rather than just
headlines? Seems like a bad idea to me.

They did cause actual damage. As I have implied, they behaved like
fascists, or like ISIS terrorists.

I would have had more respect for them if they had set themselves on fire.

Spike

2024-09-28 17:57:27 UTC

[…]

Post by Jon Ribbens
So you think Just Stop Oil should cause actual damage, rather than just
headlines? Seems like a bad idea to me.

They did cause actual damage. As I have implied, they behaved like
fascists, or like ISIS terrorists.
I would have had more respect for them if they had set themselves on fire.

Ah, the Jan Palach approach, still remembered some 55 years later:

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Palach>

I don’t think JSO have that sort of courage.

--
Spike

Les. Hayward

2024-09-28 16:55:17 UTC

Post by The Todal
I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons, they threw soup at an important work of art,
damaging the valuable historic frame and recklessly risking damage to
the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the glass and made
contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more damage was not
caused, but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that
they couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.
It's like throwing a stone at your face and then claiming that because
it only glanced off your coat, you didn't commit a crime of violence.
They did cause actual damage. As I have implied, they behaved like
fascists, or like ISIS terrorists.
I would have had more respect for them if they had set themselves on fire.

I am entirely with the Todal on this one!

Jethro_uk

2024-09-28 17:05:30 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...

It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

2024-09-29 11:58:54 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-29 12:58:07 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm and
distress can be a violent crime.

--
Roger Hayter

Jethro_uk

2024-09-29 13:12:09 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons, they threw soup at an important work of art,
damaging the valuable historic frame and recklessly risking damage to
the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the glass and made
contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more damage was not
caused, but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was
that they couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to
bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more
than if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm and
distress can be a violent crime.

Indeed. And bystanders - in todays world on tensions - could very well
have been seriously worried as to what might happen next.

It's less than 3 months since 3 children were murdered at a totally
innocent dance event. I think anyone who dismisses peoples anxiety about
the possibility of being a victim of a violent senseless crime is lacking
in imagination, if not empathy.

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-29 14:38:58 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons, they threw soup at an important work of art,
damaging the valuable historic frame and recklessly risking damage to
the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the glass and made
contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more damage was not
caused, but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was
that they couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more
than if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm and
distress can be a violent crime.

Indeed. And bystanders - in todays world on tensions - could very well
have been seriously worried as to what might happen next.
It's less than 3 months since 3 children were murdered at a totally
innocent dance event. I think anyone who dismisses peoples anxiety about
the possibility of being a victim of a violent senseless crime is lacking
in imagination, if not empathy.

Anyone who goes immediately from "spilled soup!" to "imminent murders!",
on the other hand, has been gifted with *far too much* imagination.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-29 16:37:03 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate.
They were ignorant morons, they threw soup at an important work of
art, damaging the valuable historic frame and recklessly risking
damage to the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the
glass and made contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more
damage was not caused, but what was clear from the comments of the
defendants was that they couldn't give a shit whether more damage
was caused.

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the
people pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to
bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more
than if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm
and distress can be a violent crime.

Indeed. And bystanders - in todays world on tensions - could very well
have been seriously worried as to what might happen next.
It's less than 3 months since 3 children were murdered at a totally
innocent dance event. I think anyone who dismisses peoples anxiety
about the possibility of being a victim of a violent senseless crime is
lacking in imagination, if not empathy.

Anyone who goes immediately from "spilled soup!" to "imminent murders!",
on the other hand, has been gifted with *far too much* imagination.

Ah, so it's the victims fault.

2024-09-29 13:13:56 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm and
distress can be a violent crime.

Many of us would be aghast at damaging an important painting. Is that
the same as being alarmed and distressed?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-29 14:58:06 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

We already, in various contexts, recognise that causing people alarm and
distress can be a violent crime.

Many of us would be aghast at damaging an important painting. Is that
the same as being alarmed and distressed?

For some people I am sure it is. And you do not mention the sudden violent
action causing apprehension of harm to bystanders even though the perpetrators
did not intend it.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-29 13:17:30 UTC

[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]

This contrasts with the Colston statue case, where it seems the people
pulling it down *had* taken precautions to prevent injury to bystanders.
A fact which led me to support their acquittal ...
It's one of those perverse facts of law, isn't it ? If you do try to
prevent injury by preparing in advance, it actually damns you more than
if you "just do it" and don't care if anyone gets hurt.

I'm lost by your argument. Nobody was, or could be, hurt by the soup.

How about "harmed"?

Norman Wells

2024-09-28 18:07:16 UTC

Post by The Todal
I agree with the judge but I am sure many people will disagree.

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons,

Were they? Even if established to be so, which I don't think they were,
I wasn't aware that it's illegal.

Post by The Todal
they threw soup at an important work of art,

How are you defining 'important' I wonder? To me it's a primitive,
garish, uninspired, uninspiring and uninteresting work, and not
something I'd want to own in the least except for the grossly inflated
artificial price I could maybe get by selling it to someone arty I can con.

Post by The Todal
damaging the valuable historic frame

I think you mean just that it's old. The only 'history' it has derives
entirely from the age it is, and it's actually nothing special at all.
What has it done, where has it been, to make it 'historic'?

In fact, if you believe what has been alleged, ie that it can be damaged
irreparably by soup, my view would be that it's of such poor quality
that it should have been returned under the Sale of Goods Act.

Post by The Todal
and recklessly risking damage to
the picture itself, if the soup had crept behind the glass and made
contact with the canvass. It was pure luck that more damage was not
caused,

But it wasn't. And I'm sure the National Gallery would not have
displayed such an 'important' work of art, as you allege, if it could
have been. That would have been really negligent.

Post by The Todal
but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that
they couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

They maybe knew their actions couldn't damage it anyway because of the
precautions that would have surrounded it.

In which case, could they have had the mens rea for the crime of which
they have been convicted?

Could I if I fired a pea shooter at a tank?

The Todal

2024-09-29 12:23:05 UTC

Post by The Todal
I agree with the judge but I am sure many people will disagree.

I disagree. The judge's comments were appropriate and accurate. They
were ignorant morons,

Were they? Even if established to be so, which I don't think they were,
I wasn't aware that it's illegal.

Post by The Todal
they threw soup at an important work of art,

Post by The Todal
damaging the valuable historic frame

I think you mean just that it's old. The only 'history' it has derives
entirely from the age it is, and it's actually nothing special at all.
What has it done, where has it been, to make it 'historic'?
In fact, if you believe what has been alleged, ie that it can be damaged
irreparably by soup, my view would be that it's of such poor quality
that it should have been returned under the Sale of Goods Act.

Post by The Todal
and recklessly risking damage to the picture itself, if the soup had
crept behind the glass and made contact with the canvass. It was pure
luck that more damage was not caused,

But it wasn't. And I'm sure the National Gallery would not have
displayed such an 'important' work of art, as you allege, if it could
have been. That would have been really negligent.

Post by The Todal
but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that they
couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

They maybe knew their actions couldn't damage it anyway because of the
precautions that would have surrounded it.
In which case, could they have had the mens rea for the crime of which
they have been convicted?
Could I if I fired a pea shooter at a tank?

If you have actually read the sentencing remarks of the judge, then I
can only assume that what you have written is intended as satire.

If someone empties a can of paint on your car, is it much of an excuse
for them to say that they know that modern cars are given a protective
lacquer coating when new, which makes it much harder to damage the
paintwork? Without actually knowing if your car has such a coating?

I don't really want Just Stop Oil protesters to set themselves on fire.
Maybe they should empty some soup on the floor of the gallery. Or on
each other. Or take all their clothes off - that is guaranteed to get
headlines and pictures.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-29 13:13:11 UTC

Post by The Todal
I don't really want Just Stop Oil protesters to set themselves on fire.

Well if they did it in a pensioners house, it might mitigate for the loss
of the WFA ...

Norman Wells

2024-09-29 15:37:51 UTC

Post by The Todal
and recklessly risking damage to the picture itself, if the soup had
crept behind the glass and made contact with the canvass. It was pure
luck that more damage was not caused,

But it wasn't. And I'm sure the National Gallery would not have
displayed such an 'important' work of art, as you allege, if it could
have been. That would have been really negligent.

Post by The Todal
but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that they
couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

They maybe knew their actions couldn't damage it anyway because of the
precautions that would have surrounded it.
In which case, could they have had the mens rea for the crime of which
they have been convicted?
Could I if I fired a pea shooter at a tank?

If you have actually read the sentencing remarks of the judge, then I
can only assume that what you have written is intended as satire.

No, I think the judge has acted from his own perspectives and
prejudices, and I think he went way over the top to show just how
traditional, conservative and establishment he is, without really
considering the case properly on its merits. He escalated a no actual
damage case into a heinous crime against humanity, and sentenced
accordingly.

Post by The Todal
If someone empties a can of paint on your car, is it much of an excuse
for them to say that they know that modern cars are given a protective
lacquer coating when new, which makes it much harder to damage the
paintwork? Without actually knowing if your car has such a coating?

Replace the can of paint with a cup of water, and I think it's a
perfectly reasonable excuse that it won't cause any harm. Just as if I
fired a peashooter at a tank, on which you declined to comment above.

If the actual risk of harm is negligible or non-existent, which it isn't
in your can of paint example, I think the person carrying out the act
has no mens rea to cause criminal damage, so should not, indeed cannot
legitimately be, convicted of it.

JNugent

2024-09-29 16:05:38 UTC

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal
and recklessly risking damage to the picture itself, if the soup had
crept behind the glass and made contact with the canvass. It was
pure luck that more damage was not caused,

But it wasn't. And I'm sure the National Gallery would not have
displayed such an 'important' work of art, as you allege, if it could
have been. That would have been really negligent.

Post by The Todal
but what was clear from the comments of the defendants was that they
couldn't give a shit whether more damage was caused.

They maybe knew their actions couldn't damage it anyway because of
the precautions that would have surrounded it.
In which case, could they have had the mens rea for the crime of
which they have been convicted?
Could I if I fired a pea shooter at a tank?

If you have actually read the sentencing remarks of the judge, then I
can only assume that what you have written is intended as satire.

Replace the can of paint with a cup of water, and I think it's a
perfectly reasonable excuse that it won't cause any harm. Just as if I
fired a peashooter at a tank, on which you declined to comment above.
If the actual risk of harm is negligible or non-existent, which it isn't
in your can of paint example, I think the person carrying out the act
has no mens rea to cause criminal damage, so should not, indeed cannot
legitimately be, convicted of it.

Criminal damage does not have to be permanent for the offence to subsist.

Clive Arthur

2024-09-28 21:18:46 UTC

On 28/09/2024 17:10, The Todal wrote:

<snip>

I would have had more respect for [JSO] if they had set themselves on fire.

But not using petrol, obvs.

--
Cheers
Clive

2024-09-29 11:56:28 UTC

Post by Jon Ribbens
His comments are utterly stupid. "If you had done something, that you
did not in fact do, it would have been violent, but you didn't, so it
wasn't, but I'm going to harangue you as if you did and it was."

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

billy bookcase

2024-09-29 13:43:33 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was. There was a
small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were reckless about that risk.

If there was any risk at all of doing any harm whatsoever then they wouldn't
be allowed to sell tins of the stuff for public consumption. Never mind allow
people to feed it to small children.

bb

Roger Hayter

2024-09-29 14:59:35 UTC

Post by billy bookcase

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was. There was a
small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were reckless about that risk.

If there was any risk at all of doing any harm whatsoever then they wouldn't
be allowed to sell tins of the stuff for public consumption. Never mind allow
people to feed it to small children.

Do you have a laptop? Upholstered furniture? Try the effect of copious soup on
them.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2024-09-29 16:02:13 UTC

Post by billy bookcase

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was. There was a
small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were reckless about that risk.

If there was any risk at all of doing any harm whatsoever then they wouldn't
be allowed to sell tins of the stuff for public consumption. Never mind allow
people to feed it to small children.
bb

Is it meant to be administered via the eyes?

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-29 14:11:44 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

You're just making that up though. You have no idea what research they
did in advance.

Jethro_uk

2024-09-29 14:38:37 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

You're just making that up though. You have no idea what research they
did in advance.

Well if they did, it wasn't presented to the court, so the overall effect
is still the same: Sod all.

Roger Hayter

2024-09-29 15:01:27 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

You're just making that up though. You have no idea what research they
did in advance.

Since they did harm a very valuable antique frame I think we can assume that
it was not much. Or perhaps that they hoped for damage to occur. Who knows?

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-09-29 16:35:52 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

You're just making that up though. You have no idea what research they
did in advance.

Since they did harm a very valuable antique frame

You don't think that's just been hyped up out of pique and all
proportion because there was no damage to the actual painting?

What exactly makes it 'very valuable'? It's old, granted. But actually
what has been alleged is that the soup 'damaged' the patina on it rather
than the frame itself. Now that may affect the value of old furniture
to arty folk who think preserving dirty things in aspic is a good idea,
but it seems a bit inconsistent with the same art world's habit of
removing aged varnish, ie patina, from the surface of the painting itself.

Both are acceptable or neither, I'd have thought.

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we can assume that
it was not much. Or perhaps that they hoped for damage to occur. Who knows?

That goes to whether they actually had mens rea for the crime of which
they were convicted. And that needs to be established not just assumed.

JNugent

2024-09-29 16:04:13 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

You're just making that up though. You have no idea what research they
did in advance.

That is the point. They were reckless irrespective of any research they
had, or had not, done.

IOW, they didn't care whether the picture could be damaged or whether it
would be damaged.

Norman Wells

2024-09-29 15:26:23 UTC

They had no way of knowing how well protected the painting actually was.
There was a small risk of doing a great deal of harm, and they were
reckless about that risk.

Except of course that they were there in person and could see. And
would naturally and reasonably expect that such an 'important' work
would be adequately protected against moisture ingress. It would, after
all, have been very remiss of the gallery not to.

Anyway, I don't think tomato soup is a natural predator of oil paintings
in the wild, which are intrinsically water-resistant, just like the
paint you put on your window frames. It would simply wash off with a
little water, probably causing no damage whatsoever.

All this escalation from 'no damage actually being caused' to 'great
deal of harm to an important work' is very much a middle class
affectation based on conditioning to think certain things are sacrosanct
even when, looked at with an open mind, they aren't. The art world is a
prime exponent of that. It tells (cons) you that a work is of extreme
value when you wouldn't probably want it on your own wall at home which,
to be honest, is the only valid criterion. That's what paintings are
for. And if you don't like them, or they don't fit with your colour
scheme, they don't comply with that so, to you, they're essentially
worthless.

Here's a little test. If you'd seen 'Sunflowers' in a junk shop, it
being unknown and being by a completely unknown artist, eg Norman de
Wells, would you have bought it?

Would the answer be different if you'd seen it in an upmarket gallery?

Roger Hayter

2024-09-28 17:28:40 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
Two previously convicted get sentenced, and three more get arrested.

The whole premise of JSO is bananas, as they are against oil
production, rather than oil consumption. It's like blaming sugar
producers because you are fat, rather than stopping feeding your face.

The judgment is worth reading. The incandescent fury of the judge is
apparent from the outset. I don't think there can be many people who
think the sentences were too severe. These women were idiots.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HOLLAND.SENTREMS.pdf
I see on X (formerly known as Twitter) that hours after the sentencing,
activists have thrown more soup over two Van Gogh paintings. If I had
been present in that gallery, I would have been tempted to give them a
good kicking. Perhaps that's an unworthy thought.

What's the logic of picking on Van Gogh paintings? I know he used oils,
but that's all in the past.

The logic is that he's basically the most famous artist ever,
so anything involving him will make headlines. It's not complicated.

But what exactly are the headlines that they hoped to create from their
actions?

Well, er, yes. There's no violence or rioting involved, and nobody
is put in fear for their lives. That seems like quite a significant
difference to me.

The tort of trespass(?) to property has concept of aggravated damages when it
is done in an alarming or distressing way. Is there any similar concept of
aggravation with criminal damage or would it have to be an additional charge?
I agree with you and the judge.

snip

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter

2024-09-28 17:35:11 UTC

snip

Even better for Just Stop Oil then, if you're right that people don't
actually care about the paintings. The headlines appear nonetheless.

I think a much better protest would be to go to a public library, remove
many handfuls of books, and burn them in a heap outside the library in
the view of journalists and TV cameras. Whilst displaying the usual
"Just Stop Oil" shirts.
Burning books has in the past been an act of protest that has definitely
made history. Anyway, they can always be reprinted. Usually.
Another option would be to damage and destroy antique statues in museums
using sledgehammers and drills. It would send a valuable message to the
world, that those who admire or worship old statues should be turning
their attention to the future of humanity and the planet.

I always think we should not let them get away with claiming the planet is at
risk. Earth has always carried on and developed new and interesting organisms
after any extinction event, and global warming is hardly a blip on the record
of paleantological events. I believe it may do harm, perhaps catastrophic, to
human civilisation, but I find it hard to get worked up about that. I really
doubt it would even manage to eliminate humanity totally - we seem to have
adapted to most climates.

--
Roger Hayter

Clive Arthur

2024-09-28 21:23:08 UTC

On 28/09/2024 18:35, Roger Hayter wrote:

<snipped>

Post by Roger Hayter
I always think we should not let them get away with claiming the planet is at
risk. Earth has always carried on and developed new and interesting organisms
after any extinction event, and global warming is hardly a blip on the record
of paleantological events. I believe it may do harm, perhaps catastrophic, to
human civilisation, but I find it hard to get worked up about that. I really
doubt it would even manage to eliminate humanity totally - we seem to have
adapted to most climates.

Species may come and species may go, but the Art School Dance goes on
forever.

--
Cheers
Clive

AnthonyL

2024-09-29 12:10:44 UTC