FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Window smashers not guilty
Window smashers not guilty
Jump to: Newest in thread
The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They wore patches with the words "better broken windows than broken promises" - a phrase coined by the Suffragettes - and put up stickers on the windows saying: "£80 billion into fossil fuels in the last 5 years
Yeah imagine having given women the vote!
They were tried by their peers and their lawyer was able to argue that essentially their action was legitimate as the bank was committing a bigger crime..
Like if you saw a guy rob and old lady and tripped the robber up so the police could catch him you would be guilty of assault or something similar. However your actions were stopping a bigger crime so no jury would convict you.
This is what has been argued, successfully, today.
That's the UK justice system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *uietbloke67Man 25 weeks ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
It's criminal damage, of course they argued it wasn't, they are allowed to. However no doubt they will be found guilty.
I was caught speeding, I argued it was going down hill it was gravity.
I then paid the fine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They wore patches with the words "better broken windows than broken promises" - a phrase coined by the Suffragettes - and put up stickers on the windows saying: "£80 billion into fossil fuels in the last 5 years
Yeah imagine having given women the vote!
They were tried by their peers and their lawyer was able to argue that essentially their action was legitimate as the bank was committing a bigger crime..
Like if you saw a guy rob and old lady and tripped the robber up so the police could catch him you would be guilty of assault or something similar. However your actions were stopping a bigger crime so no jury would convict you.
This is what has been argued, successfully, today.
That's the UK justice system. "
But what the bank did isn't legally a crime? Unlike someone robbing the old lady.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?"
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 25 weeks ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased."
Nonsense |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
Nonsense "
Thanks for the well-written and thoughtful response |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased."
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge. "
My guess is that by the luck of lottery, the jury ended up to be mostly from one end of political spectrum. Not sure how often such outrageous verdicts are passed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 25 weeks ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge. "
Oo well just read they where found not guilty, can only see it on SKY news.
Half a million pounds to replace the glass, seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Perhaps HSBC didn't think it was in their overall best interests to be seen to be prosecuting people who where trying to save the planet.
Anyway, it's only glass, they can afford it and ER have said the won't pursue that tactic anymore.
If you hadn't brought it up I'd have been none the wiser. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They wore patches with the words "better broken windows than broken promises" - a phrase coined by the Suffragettes - and put up stickers on the windows saying: "£80 billion into fossil fuels in the last 5 years
Yeah imagine having given women the vote!
They were tried by their peers and their lawyer was able to argue that essentially their action was legitimate as the bank was committing a bigger crime..
Like if you saw a guy rob and old lady and tripped the robber up so the police could catch him you would be guilty of assault or something similar. However your actions were stopping a bigger crime so no jury would convict you.
This is what has been argued, successfully, today.
That's the UK justice system.
But what the bank did isn't legally a crime? Unlike someone robbing the old lady.."
It was a quick example to make the point but I guess their argument was that we have signed legally binding agreements to lower co2 by X amount and they were going against it.
I'm only going off the people who got off for throwing Colston in the water the other year as assuming it's the same argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They wore patches with the words "better broken windows than broken promises" - a phrase coined by the Suffragettes - and put up stickers on the windows saying: "£80 billion into fossil fuels in the last 5 years
Yeah imagine having given women the vote!
They were tried by their peers and their lawyer was able to argue that essentially their action was legitimate as the bank was committing a bigger crime..
Like if you saw a guy rob and old lady and tripped the robber up so the police could catch him you would be guilty of assault or something similar. However your actions were stopping a bigger crime so no jury would convict you.
This is what has been argued, successfully, today.
That's the UK justice system.
But what the bank did isn't legally a crime? Unlike someone robbing the old lady..
It was a quick example to make the point but I guess their argument was that we have signed legally binding agreements to lower co2 by X amount and they were going against it.
I'm only going off the people who got off for throwing Colston in the water the other year as assuming it's the same argument. "
Even the Colston statue thing should have been a guilty verdict. Now I understand what feisty is saying. It looks like people are arbitrarily applying laws based on their own political views instead of following what the law says. We might as well have street laws if this continues.
The country signing an agreement to reduce CO2 by some amount does not make HSBC's investment illegal. Again, it's a political view of a few people and shouldn't have any impact on legal outcomes.
As I said in my first post, we might as well use computers to read the legal documents and pass judgements instead of a jury that's compromised by people's inherent biases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge.
Oo well just read they where found not guilty, can only see it on SKY news.
Half a million pounds to replace the glass, seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Perhaps HSBC didn't think it was in their overall best interests to be seen to be prosecuting people who where trying to save the planet.
Anyway, it's only glass, they can afford it and ER have said the won't pursue that tactic anymore.
If you hadn't brought it up I'd have been none the wiser."
Its only glass? And does it really matter how much HSBC said it would cost to replace.
This is criminal damage and its plain to see for anyone. The law should be upheld in that respect.
XR actually switched to that tactic after the train situation, they have stated they won't use tactics that lose them public support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 25 weeks ago
|
On the plus side a few of the XR Trustafarians have been imprisoned lately so sometimes the system works.
Though 6 months in prison for the usual white middle class £45k a year school kids probably isn’t going to make any difference. It’s just something to add to their cv for when daddy gets them a job at some City environmental consultancy, in the civil service or at the UN.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge.
Oo well just read they where found not guilty, can only see it on SKY news.
Half a million pounds to replace the glass, seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Perhaps HSBC didn't think it was in their overall best interests to be seen to be prosecuting people who where trying to save the planet.
Anyway, it's only glass, they can afford it and ER have said the won't pursue that tactic anymore.
If you hadn't brought it up I'd have been none the wiser.
Its only glass? And does it really matter how much HSBC said it would cost to replace.
This is criminal damage and its plain to see for anyone. The law should be upheld in that respect.
XR actually switched to that tactic after the train situation, they have stated they won't use tactics that lose them public support. "
Reminds me of some towns in the US where shoplifting and damage to supermarkets by mobs went out of control. Some people were using lame excuses like "It's a minor damage" or "They anyway have insurance". Before long, the supermarkets left those areas, people living there ended up having to travel far to buy stuff and the ones who justified the damages were left with a shocked pikachu face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118"
The thing I find most disturbing about this is that I'm no longer surprised |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118
The thing I find most disturbing about this is that I'm no longer surprised"
Exactly! We are basically encouraging mob justice. These people are too stupid to realise that one fine day, the mob will do things which they don't like or directly affects them and then they will wonder why there isn't a rule of law. People underestimate the effect of people losing their trust in law enforcement and courts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man 25 weeks ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge.
Oo well just read they where found not guilty, can only see it on SKY news.
Half a million pounds to replace the glass, seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Perhaps HSBC didn't think it was in their overall best interests to be seen to be prosecuting people who where trying to save the planet.
Anyway, it's only glass, they can afford it and ER have said the won't pursue that tactic anymore.
If you hadn't brought it up I'd have been none the wiser.
Its only glass? And does it really matter how much HSBC said it would cost to replace.
This is criminal damage and its plain to see for anyone. The law should be upheld in that respect.
XR actually switched to that tactic after the train situation, they have stated they won't use tactics that lose them public support. "
The law found them not guilty, so strictly speaking they haven't been found guilty of criminal damage to its not criminal damage.
Perhaps the courts should have went for a lesser definition like vandalism.
I suspect the defence was based on the criminal damage definition...but hey Ho I'm no lawyer.
Somebody writes.....clearly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No matter that this was a very rich corporation, the act is still criminal damage..
Wonder what the response might be from a member of that jury if tomorrow someone puts their window in..
Strange decision .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
This seems really strange.. The jury wanted an explanation of the Paris Climate agreement, information on what the uk government had done to address climate change and an explanation on how HSBC had arrived at a cost for the windows so quickly.
Is it the role of the jury to decide if the law has been broken, or is it their duty to apply their moral judgement on crime.
The CPS often say they can't take something to court through lack of evidence, isn't that the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are. "
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
"
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings."
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all."
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?"
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all."
"Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?"
Have you not seen all the news stories about how all AI is irredeemably biased because it's created by white people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside. "
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Have you not seen all the news stories about how all AI is irredeemably biased because it's created by white people?"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in."
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 25 weeks ago
|
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?"
I can think of one downside right away, hacking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
"
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?"
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
I can think of one downside right away, hacking."
Like jury tampering? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?"
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels? "
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 25 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels?
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty?"
You do like to dramatise
You have added machine warlords to someones AI comment, and you have simply made up the whole of your lefty comments
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels?
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty?
You do like to dramatise
You have added machine warlords to someones AI comment, and you have simply made up the whole of your lefty comments
"
Machine Warlords!
Upping the ante!
Anyway, let's get back to the point. Should we be ruled over by AI machines from now on, to make sure justice against lefties is swift and brutal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They wore patches with the words "better broken windows than broken promises" - a phrase coined by the Suffragettes - and put up stickers on the windows saying: "£80 billion into fossil fuels in the last 5 years
Yeah imagine having given women the vote!
They were tried by their peers and their lawyer was able to argue that essentially their action was legitimate as the bank was committing a bigger crime..
Like if you saw a guy rob and old lady and tripped the robber up so the police could catch him you would be guilty of assault or something similar. However your actions were stopping a bigger crime so no jury would convict you.
This is what has been argued, successfully, today.
That's the UK justice system.
But what the bank did isn't legally a crime? Unlike someone robbing the old lady..
It was a quick example to make the point but I guess their argument was that we have signed legally binding agreements to lower co2 by X amount and they were going against it.
I'm only going off the people who got off for throwing Colston in the water the other year as assuming it's the same argument.
Even the Colston statue thing should have been a guilty verdict. Now I understand what feisty is saying. It looks like people are arbitrarily applying laws based on their own political views instead of following what the law says. We might as well have street laws if this continues.
The country signing an agreement to reduce CO2 by some amount does not make HSBC's investment illegal. Again, it's a political view of a few people and shouldn't have any impact on legal outcomes.
As I said in my first post, we might as well use computers to read the legal documents and pass judgements instead of a jury that's compromised by people's inherent biases."
That's your opinion of what happened and you were not in court.
The legal view is that was not guilty. That's the law. You may not agree with it but that's the law.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels?
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty?
You do like to dramatise
You have added machine warlords to someones AI comment, and you have simply made up the whole of your lefty comments
Machine Warlords!
Upping the ante!
Anyway, let's get back to the point. Should we be ruled over by AI machines from now on, to make sure justice against lefties is swift and brutal?"
Robocop perhaps? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 25 weeks ago
|
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels?
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty?
You do like to dramatise
You have added machine warlords to someones AI comment, and you have simply made up the whole of your lefty comments
"
**********************************
Please, don't take the bait.
Let him run until he falls asleep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside.
I forgot you like to see criminals get away with it, for the causes you believe in.
You're 100% correct.
The only options are:
1. let people off all crimes.
2. be ruled over by AI machine overlords.
AI machine overlords? What are they? Do they have toilet plungers on their dusty bin heads?
No idea. Ask the chap that suggested it.
As I said. I'm 100% on board. Aren't you? Do you want these loony lefties let off Scott free?
What loony lefties are you on about? The criminals that admitted breaking office windows with hammers and chisels?
I thought every criminal, undesirable, lowlife, scumbag was a lefty?
You do like to dramatise
You have added machine warlords to someones AI comment, and you have simply made up the whole of your lefty comments
Machine Warlords!
Upping the ante!
Anyway, let's get back to the point. Should we be ruled over by AI machines from now on, to make sure justice against lefties is swift and brutal?
Robocop perhaps?"
RoboCop is a Tory's dream.
The fella got shot, was killed dead, didn't qualify for any disability allowance and had to go back to work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge.
Oo well just read they where found not guilty, can only see it on SKY news.
Half a million pounds to replace the glass, seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Perhaps HSBC didn't think it was in their overall best interests to be seen to be prosecuting people who where trying to save the planet.
Anyway, it's only glass, they can afford it and ER have said the won't pursue that tactic anymore.
If you hadn't brought it up I'd have been none the wiser.
Its only glass? And does it really matter how much HSBC said it would cost to replace.
This is criminal damage and its plain to see for anyone. The law should be upheld in that respect.
XR actually switched to that tactic after the train situation, they have stated they won't use tactics that lose them public support.
The law found them not guilty, so strictly speaking they haven't been found guilty of criminal damage to its not criminal damage.
Perhaps the courts should have went for a lesser definition like vandalism.
I suspect the defence was based on the criminal damage definition...but hey Ho I'm no lawyer.
Somebody writes.....clearly "
The law didn't find them not guilty, a jury of their peers did.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I genuinely think I'm beginning to lose faith in my fellow countrymen (or should that be countrypeople).
How the fuck do you come to the conclusion that this wasn't criminal damage?
I wouldn't blame it on all people in general. But most institutions have become politically biased.
It was a jury that found them not guilty. Not a judge. "
Because we have had 15 years of the press telling us that its all the fault of the evil big bankers and so the general public want to see banks shafted in any way they can
Most people on the street dont even know there ie a difference between an investment bank & a retail bank never mind what caused the financial crash. Its like they think the teller in the local natwest branch is taking home a giant bonus  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The 2008 financial crash is still affecting all of our finances and the idea that high st banks are better than others because they are less risky is inherently ridiculous as they are far more likely to invest in businesses that are more likely to make a guaranteed return like say erm the oil industry and so perhaps ER were attacking the right targets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Have you not seen all the news stories about how all AI is irredeemably biased because it's created by white people?"
I have read that and got headache. Then I read something about how mathematics is racist. That gave me a heart attack |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
Absolutely, being ruled over by machines. Can't see any downside. "
I don't think AI passing verdicts means AI is ruling us. The system's job will be to infer the laws written by humans and pass judgements based on that. Humans still write the laws. It doesn't even need a human level AGI. It just needs a specialised system that can understand the laws and find the right judgement. We can always have a human verification after the judgement is passed.
Pretty sure you won't get outrageously stupid judgements like the HSBC one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
-----------------
..the first step in the destruction of humanity."
Agreed. This couldn’t more obviously have been written by someone that understands neither AI or the jury system |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
-----------------
..the first step in the destruction of humanity.
Agreed. This couldn’t more obviously have been written by someone that understands neither AI or the jury system"
I am a software engineer and I have done a fair bit of work in AI. Not an expert in jury system beyond the basics admittedly.
I think destruction of humanity is what will happen if we have a jury system that arbitrarily makes decisions based on their political bias, instead of following what the law says. A jury system that would not punish mobs for causing damages is much more destructive for humanity than an AI that can learn from the laws and apply it without bias and can be verified by humans.
So instead of passing smug remarks, can you actually make an argument? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
-----------------
..the first step in the destruction of humanity.
Agreed. This couldn’t more obviously have been written by someone that understands neither AI or the jury system
I am a software engineer and I have done a fair bit of work in AI. Not an expert in jury system beyond the basics admittedly.
I think destruction of humanity is what will happen if we have a jury system that arbitrarily makes decisions based on their political bias, instead of following what the law says. A jury system that would not punish mobs for causing damages is much more destructive for humanity than an AI that can learn from the laws and apply it without bias and can be verified by humans.
So instead of passing smug remarks, can you actually make an argument?"
--------------------------
Forgive me but you (or I) didn't hear the evidence, consider the arguments or know the 'political bias' of the jury members.
'What the law says' is that the plight of a defendant is considered by a jury of their peers which was the case here.
If you believe an AI system will develop a system of justice 'without bias' or unintended outcomes you are gravely mistaken. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
-----------------
..the first step in the destruction of humanity.
Agreed. This couldn’t more obviously have been written by someone that understands neither AI or the jury system
I am a software engineer and I have done a fair bit of work in AI. Not an expert in jury system beyond the basics admittedly.
I think destruction of humanity is what will happen if we have a jury system that arbitrarily makes decisions based on their political bias, instead of following what the law says. A jury system that would not punish mobs for causing damages is much more destructive for humanity than an AI that can learn from the laws and apply it without bias and can be verified by humans.
So instead of passing smug remarks, can you actually make an argument?
--------------------------
Forgive me but you (or I) didn't hear the evidence, consider the arguments or know the 'political bias' of the jury members.
'What the law says' is that the plight of a defendant is considered by a jury of their peers which was the case here.
If you believe an AI system will develop a system of justice 'without bias' or unintended outcomes you are gravely mistaken."
We know that the defendant did not argue that they did not smash the windows. They argued that they did it but it's not wrong. In what world is that wrong? Next time I don't like what a business does, should I just go and smash their property?
AI can be taught to be much less biased if we just make it learn the law directly and apply it. Sure we can have a human committee review its decisions and have a highly scrutinised process when the AI judgement is overturned by this committee. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man 25 weeks ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
I am always reluctant to comment on a sentence following a trial because if I did not attend the full hearing I am unaware of the full facts .
In the argument "protesters v bank " I would probably come down very heavily on the side of the protesters
BUT the outcome in this case does sound incredibly strange |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sure we can have a human committee review its decisions and have a highly scrutinised process when the AI judgement is overturned by this committee."
---------------------------
We already have a human review committee, it's a jury of 12 unconnected individuals who sit and hear all the evidence presented to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions."
Sound. I'll throw bricks at parked cars and just say I intended them to bounce off without causing any damage.
See how farcical that sounds? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sure we can have a human committee review its decisions and have a highly scrutinised process when the AI judgement is overturned by this committee.
---------------------------
We already have a human review committee, it's a jury of 12 unconnected individuals who sit and hear all the evidence presented to them."
This..
Adding more layers to a service already stretched and struggling makes no sense.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions."
So if we had a large protest in a city where thousands march in line but wanted to draw more attention to their protest, could the front row of the line peel off, smash some windows, and sit down waiting to be arrested. Then the next row do the same to the next set of Windows and again wait to be arrested and keep repeating until either all protesters are waiting to be arrested or they run out of Windows to smash |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man 25 weeks ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"I am always reluctant to comment on a sentence following a trial because if I did not attend the full hearing I am unaware of the full facts .
In the argument "protesters v bank " I would probably come down very heavily on the side of the protesters
BUT the outcome in this case does sound incredibly strange "
having said it is strange it has come in the same week the government has had their plan deemed unlawful by the courts , the government's response, legislation to change the law ,, so a strange week all round |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sure we can have a human committee review its decisions and have a highly scrutinised process when the AI judgement is overturned by this committee.
---------------------------
We already have a human review committee, it's a jury of 12 unconnected individuals who sit and hear all the evidence presented to them."
We can repurpose that for reviewing AI decisions. We anyway save time of the Jury |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sure we can have a human committee review its decisions and have a highly scrutinised process when the AI judgement is overturned by this committee.
---------------------------
We already have a human review committee, it's a jury of 12 unconnected individuals who sit and hear all the evidence presented to them.
We can repurpose that for reviewing AI decisions. We anyway save time of the Jury "
----------------------
I'm afraid AI being relied on to make decisions relating to criminal cases is inherently flawed since the shortcomings in human deliberations will simply be amplified, whilst creating many of its own in terms of how it interprets nuance and context. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions."
"Sound. I'll throw bricks at parked cars and just say I intended them to bounce off without causing any damage.
See how farcical that sounds?"
It sounds farcical because you've picked a farcical example.
If you smash a car window with the intent of stealing stuff from inside, you've committed Criminal Damage. If you smash a car window with the intent of running away and hiding, you've committed Criminal Damage. If you smash a car window, and then wait for the owner to arrive, and pay him for the cost of replacement, you haven't committed Criminal Damage. That's just damage with no criminal intent.
No one is going to be believed if they say that they thought bricks would just bounce off a car. And brick throwing falls into the category of a reckless action, which would also count against you in a Criminal Damage case.
Let's pick another farcical example. What if you smashed a car window because it was a hot day, and there was a dog in the vehicle that appeared to be in distress. Would you expect to be prosecuted for Criminal Damage? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if we had a large protest in a city where thousands march in line but wanted to draw more attention to their protest, could the front row of the line peel off, smash some windows, and sit down waiting to be arrested. Then the next row do the same to the next set of Windows and again wait to be arrested and keep repeating until either all protesters are waiting to be arrested or they run out of Windows to smash"
Yes.
As I said above, they can still be held liable for the costs, they just won't be prosecuted for Criminal Damage.
Of course, they'd have to be careful how the windows were broken. They can't just lob a brick at them, as that would be likely to cause further random damage, and can't be considered a carefully measured action.
In the real world, such an action would likely backfire badly. The risk of looters would be extremely high. And the window smashers would likely be considered to have acted without giving due regard to the consequences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions.
Sound. I'll throw bricks at parked cars and just say I intended them to bounce off without causing any damage.
See how farcical that sounds?
It sounds farcical because you've picked a farcical example.
If you smash a car window with the intent of stealing stuff from inside, you've committed Criminal Damage. If you smash a car window with the intent of running away and hiding, you've committed Criminal Damage. If you smash a car window, and then wait for the owner to arrive, and pay him for the cost of replacement, you haven't committed Criminal Damage. That's just damage with no criminal intent.
No one is going to be believed if they say that they thought bricks would just bounce off a car. And brick throwing falls into the category of a reckless action, which would also count against you in a Criminal Damage case.
Let's pick another farcical example. What if you smashed a car window because it was a hot day, and there was a dog in the vehicle that appeared to be in distress. Would you expect to be prosecuted for Criminal Damage?"
Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
I don't believe they've offered go pay for the damages... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 25 weeks ago
|
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are. "
I'm sure you would. Imprison anyone to the left of you, which is most people by the look of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
-----------------
..the first step in the destruction of humanity.
Agreed. This couldn’t more obviously have been written by someone that understands neither AI or the jury system
I am a software engineer and I have done a fair bit of work in AI. Not an expert in jury system beyond the basics admittedly.
I think destruction of humanity is what will happen if we have a jury system that arbitrarily makes decisions based on their political bias, instead of following what the law says. A jury system that would not punish mobs for causing damages is much more destructive for humanity than an AI that can learn from the laws and apply it without bias and can be verified by humans.
So instead of passing smug remarks, can you actually make an argument?"
I’m not only an engineer but I run my own business. There’s not a chance that you’re a software engineer if that’s your view on AI. There’s not a chance that I’d be hiring someone that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of AI’s current capabilities, let alone such a lack of understanding of the risks involved in passing the decision making authority to AI even if it was capable
What next? Get rid of voting and replace it with AI? Replace Parliament with AI? Replace the military and the decision of when to go to war and who with?
The jury system is already designed to represent a cross section of the public to remove any bias. It’s a system that’s been built over hundreds, arguably thousands, of years of trial and error. It’s designed as a feedback system to tell us when the public don’t agree with the laws which are in place
Simply put: it’s democracy in action. Those that want rid of a jury are asking us to turn our backs on democracy. What are you? Fascist?
On the other hand, MIT (who are world renowned and named for their technology research) have spent millions trying to address bias in software and they still think software perpetuates racism
All software does is give people that want to discriminate the license to do so because it “wasn’t their decision” it was the decision of the software that they trained, licensed, and used to reach the decision
And that’s when it works. Most of these chat bots still struggle with regional accents and dialects. Plus, given the severity and scale of hacks against frontline government services including the NHS and air traffic control: do you seriously think that an automated verdict system wouldn’t be open to manipulation and abuse - let alone bias?
I hope you don’t work for me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if we had a large protest in a city where thousands march in line but wanted to draw more attention to their protest, could the front row of the line peel off, smash some windows, and sit down waiting to be arrested. Then the next row do the same to the next set of Windows and again wait to be arrested and keep repeating until either all protesters are waiting to be arrested or they run out of Windows to smash
Yes.
As I said above, they can still be held liable for the costs, they just won't be prosecuted for Criminal Damage.
Of course, they'd have to be careful how the windows were broken. They can't just lob a brick at them, as that would be likely to cause further random damage, and can't be considered a carefully measured action.
In the real world, such an action would likely backfire badly. The risk of looters would be extremely high. And the window smashers would likely be considered to have acted without giving due regard to the consequences."
Actually it’s unlikely that they could be held liable for the costs given the verdict. Trying to use the civil courts to overturn the criminal courts in this way is called a collateral attack and generally considered abuse of process |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?"
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those if you having difficulty with this decision. The offence of Criminal Damage is not one of 'damaging something and therefore being a criminal', it's 'damaging something with criminal intent'. The protestors claimed that they were not intending to commit any crime, they were just drawing attention to their protest. None of them entered the building or attempted any other actions, all of them sat and waited to be arrested for their actions, and have not denied them.
These people have not got off scot-free. They have admitted in court that they deliberately damaged the windows, and so a civil case for costs recovery will be trivial for HSBC to prove.
Being found not guilty of a specific crime does not make them immune from other legal actions."
They're loony lefties though. We should have AI convict them and throw away they key.
Probably not even worth having a trial. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
INAL. I'm also not defending the result but trying to understand the defence.
Its not criminal damage if I have consent, or believe I would be given the consent.
This defence was allowed by the judge.
So a guess is:
HSBC has said they support fighting climate change.
They are making investment decisions counter to this.
XR may claim that the action was nthe only way to raise the public profile and this force change.
If HSBC want to fight climate change they would approve of issues being raised. And so approve of the action.
That's a very loose legal argument. I'm sure an actual lawyer would tighten it up.
It may not even be the argument presented as there's limited reporting.
But even this amateur approach shows its more than just throwing a brick at a random car. Or other such scenarios. Not liking the result doesn't mean the law has been applied wrongly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Actually it’s unlikely that they could be held liable for the costs given the verdict. Trying to use the civil courts to overturn the criminal courts in this way is called a collateral attack and generally considered abuse of process"
This wouldn't be using the civil court to overturn a criminal court judgement. The criminal court found that the protesters had broken the windows, but that it didn't amount to a criminal offence. HSBC asking for the replacement cost of those windows doesn't impact on the criminal courts decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’m not only an engineer but I run my own business. There’s not a chance that you’re a software engineer if that’s your view on AI. There’s not a chance that I’d be hiring someone that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of AI’s current capabilities, let alone such a lack of understanding of the risks involved in passing the decision making authority to AI even if it was capable
"
Don't worry. I wouldn't want to join the company run by someone who knows nothing about AI but acts like knowing a lot. I am lot happier at my place of work and my company is happy to have me. I don't give a damn about whether you will hire me or not.
"
What next? Get rid of voting and replace it with AI? Replace Parliament with AI? Replace the military and the decision of when to go to war and who with?
"
Please let me know which company. I will make sure I don't even walk by that street. I mentioned clearly that humans should be responsible for passing laws and legislations. AI can be used to apply it. Computers follow the rules we set. You didn't even grasp that and went on this long rant?
"
The jury system is already designed to represent a cross section of the public to remove any bias. It’s a system that’s been built over hundreds, arguably thousands, of years of trial and error. It’s designed as a feedback system to tell us when the public don’t agree with the laws which are in place
"
We already have democracy to pass legislation. A group of 12 people can never be able to represent the rest of the public unless they went through a rigorous election process. All humans are biased and there is no way you can understand what kind of bias a human has. Just because the jury system is there for so many years, it doesn't make it automatically better. Sure humans have been doing mathematics on paper for centuries. We moved on to computers for most things, didn't we?
Any feedback we received can be easily passed on to the AI too.
"
Those that want rid of a jury are asking us to turn our backs on democracy. What are you? Fascist?
"
Ah.. The usual anybody who doesn't agree with me is potentially a fascist logic. You do know that there are many democracies which don't use the jury system, don't you? Again, you are making confident statements about something without actually knowing the facts.
"
On the other hand, MIT (who are world renowned and named for their technology research) have spent millions trying to address bias in software and they still think software perpetuates racism
"
Those issues happened in AGI and specific use cases like security. As someone who runs a company, you definitely know that the machine learning models for this use-case doesn't even have to take race into account? In fact, we can make it far less racially biased than humans.
"
All software does is give people that want to discriminate the license to do so because it “wasn’t their decision” it was the decision of the software that they trained, licensed, and used to reach the decision
"
In spite of AI being used for so many purposes and a potential saviour of western worlds from ageing population problems, you want to spread these doomsday theories? Has AI shown problems of racism? Yes. But still it is much less biased than humans on an average and you can actually debug and diagnose these issues - Something you can't do with humans.
"
And that’s when it works. Most of these chat bots still struggle with regional accents and dialects. Plus, given the severity and scale of hacks against frontline government services including the NHS and air traffic control: do you seriously think that an automated verdict system wouldn’t be open to manipulation and abuse - let alone bias?
"
Again, why are you randomly taking problems and applying to this use-case. You do know that most hacks happen because humans click on stuff they shouldn't click just because the link said a hot woman wants to meet you or they can get more money or some other phishing related hacks? Does AI have problems? Yes. Is there scope to make it better? Yes. But is it worse than humans? No.
"
I hope you don’t work for me"
Oh I hope I don't  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim."
I don't agree with this argument. If I break someone's car window to piss him off pay him money, can I argue in the court that my intent wasn't criminal? Of course my goal was to piss him off. But I don't have to say that in the court. I could just say that his car makes emissions and I was protesting against it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Actually it’s unlikely that they could be held liable for the costs given the verdict. Trying to use the civil courts to overturn the criminal courts in this way is called a collateral attack and generally considered abuse of process
This wouldn't be using the civil court to overturn a criminal court judgement. The criminal court found that the protesters had broken the windows, but that it didn't amount to a criminal offence. HSBC asking for the replacement cost of those windows doesn't impact on the criminal courts decision."
Their defence is the same which would be used in the “dog in a hot car” scenario you described above. The action lacked mens rea
They’re saying they smashed the windows as a form of personal defence. Personal defence extends to include the protection of others
If the criminal court accepted that there was a lawful excuse to damage the property then the civil court can’t overturn it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’m not only an engineer but I run my own business. There’s not a chance that you’re a software engineer if that’s your view on AI. There’s not a chance that I’d be hiring someone that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of AI’s current capabilities, let alone such a lack of understanding of the risks involved in passing the decision making authority to AI even if it was capable
Don't worry. I wouldn't want to join the company run by someone who knows nothing about AI but acts like knowing a lot. I am lot happier at my place of work and my company is happy to have me. I don't give a damn about whether you will hire me or not.
What next? Get rid of voting and replace it with AI? Replace Parliament with AI? Replace the military and the decision of when to go to war and who with?
Please let me know which company. I will make sure I don't even walk by that street. I mentioned clearly that humans should be responsible for passing laws and legislations. AI can be used to apply it. Computers follow the rules we set. You didn't even grasp that and went on this long rant?
The jury system is already designed to represent a cross section of the public to remove any bias. It’s a system that’s been built over hundreds, arguably thousands, of years of trial and error. It’s designed as a feedback system to tell us when the public don’t agree with the laws which are in place
We already have democracy to pass legislation. A group of 12 people can never be able to represent the rest of the public unless they went through a rigorous election process. All humans are biased and there is no way you can understand what kind of bias a human has. Just because the jury system is there for so many years, it doesn't make it automatically better. Sure humans have been doing mathematics on paper for centuries. We moved on to computers for most things, didn't we?
Any feedback we received can be easily passed on to the AI too.
Those that want rid of a jury are asking us to turn our backs on democracy. What are you? Fascist?
Ah.. The usual anybody who doesn't agree with me is potentially a fascist logic. You do know that there are many democracies which don't use the jury system, don't you? Again, you are making confident statements about something without actually knowing the facts.
On the other hand, MIT (who are world renowned and named for their technology research) have spent millions trying to address bias in software and they still think software perpetuates racism
Those issues happened in AGI and specific use cases like security. As someone who runs a company, you definitely know that the machine learning models for this use-case doesn't even have to take race into account? In fact, we can make it far less racially biased than humans.
All software does is give people that want to discriminate the license to do so because it “wasn’t their decision” it was the decision of the software that they trained, licensed, and used to reach the decision
In spite of AI being used for so many purposes and a potential saviour of western worlds from ageing population problems, you want to spread these doomsday theories? Has AI shown problems of racism? Yes. But still it is much less biased than humans on an average and you can actually debug and diagnose these issues - Something you can't do with humans.
And that’s when it works. Most of these chat bots still struggle with regional accents and dialects. Plus, given the severity and scale of hacks against frontline government services including the NHS and air traffic control: do you seriously think that an automated verdict system wouldn’t be open to manipulation and abuse - let alone bias?
Again, why are you randomly taking problems and applying to this use-case. You do know that most hacks happen because humans click on stuff they shouldn't click just because the link said a hot woman wants to meet you or they can get more money or some other phishing related hacks? Does AI have problems? Yes. Is there scope to make it better? Yes. But is it worse than humans? No.
I hope you don’t work for me
Oh I hope I don't "
There’s a reason there were hours between my posts. Ok not spending my Saturday arguing on the internet
Especially when the person I’m responding to can’t even be bothered coming up any hard facts or statistics to back their argument up, and dismisses actual facts and statistics as “random”. You’ve got nothing but lazy rhetoric
TTFN |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’m not only an engineer but I run my own business. There’s not a chance that you’re a software engineer if that’s your view on AI. There’s not a chance that I’d be hiring someone that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of AI’s current capabilities, let alone such a lack of understanding of the risks involved in passing the decision making authority to AI even if it was capable
Don't worry. I wouldn't want to join the company run by someone who knows nothing about AI but acts like knowing a lot. I am lot happier at my place of work and my company is happy to have me. I don't give a damn about whether you will hire me or not.
What next? Get rid of voting and replace it with AI? Replace Parliament with AI? Replace the military and the decision of when to go to war and who with?
Please let me know which company. I will make sure I don't even walk by that street. I mentioned clearly that humans should be responsible for passing laws and legislations. AI can be used to apply it. Computers follow the rules we set. You didn't even grasp that and went on this long rant?
The jury system is already designed to represent a cross section of the public to remove any bias. It’s a system that’s been built over hundreds, arguably thousands, of years of trial and error. It’s designed as a feedback system to tell us when the public don’t agree with the laws which are in place
We already have democracy to pass legislation. A group of 12 people can never be able to represent the rest of the public unless they went through a rigorous election process. All humans are biased and there is no way you can understand what kind of bias a human has. Just because the jury system is there for so many years, it doesn't make it automatically better. Sure humans have been doing mathematics on paper for centuries. We moved on to computers for most things, didn't we?
Any feedback we received can be easily passed on to the AI too.
Those that want rid of a jury are asking us to turn our backs on democracy. What are you? Fascist?
Ah.. The usual anybody who doesn't agree with me is potentially a fascist logic. You do know that there are many democracies which don't use the jury system, don't you? Again, you are making confident statements about something without actually knowing the facts.
On the other hand, MIT (who are world renowned and named for their technology research) have spent millions trying to address bias in software and they still think software perpetuates racism
Those issues happened in AGI and specific use cases like security. As someone who runs a company, you definitely know that the machine learning models for this use-case doesn't even have to take race into account? In fact, we can make it far less racially biased than humans.
All software does is give people that want to discriminate the license to do so because it “wasn’t their decision” it was the decision of the software that they trained, licensed, and used to reach the decision
In spite of AI being used for so many purposes and a potential saviour of western worlds from ageing population problems, you want to spread these doomsday theories? Has AI shown problems of racism? Yes. But still it is much less biased than humans on an average and you can actually debug and diagnose these issues - Something you can't do with humans.
And that’s when it works. Most of these chat bots still struggle with regional accents and dialects. Plus, given the severity and scale of hacks against frontline government services including the NHS and air traffic control: do you seriously think that an automated verdict system wouldn’t be open to manipulation and abuse - let alone bias?
Again, why are you randomly taking problems and applying to this use-case. You do know that most hacks happen because humans click on stuff they shouldn't click just because the link said a hot woman wants to meet you or they can get more money or some other phishing related hacks? Does AI have problems? Yes. Is there scope to make it better? Yes. But is it worse than humans? No.
I hope you don’t work for me
Oh I hope I don't
There’s a reason there were hours between my posts. Ok not spending my Saturday arguing on the internet
Especially when the person I’m responding to can’t even be bothered coming up any hard facts or statistics to back their argument up, and dismisses actual facts and statistics as “random”. You’ve got nothing but lazy rhetoric
TTFN"
Hard facts and statistics? All you came up was some doomsday headlines from clickbait articles without checking where those issues happened and why those issues happened. You blame me for lazy rhetoric? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
I don't agree with this argument. If I break someone's car window to piss him off pay him money, can I argue in the court that my intent wasn't criminal? Of course my goal was to piss him off. But I don't have to say that in the court. I could just say that his car makes emissions and I was protesting against it. "
In my example part of the argument is that HSBC may have policies on place which help establish that they may consent to the action.
Of course I'm guessing. Same way as everyone else is that the jury found them NG simply because of political views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 25 weeks ago
|
"At this point, I would rather build an AI to pass judgements than a jury, given how biased humans are.
Even better idea, a jury of fab forum members. Every loony left scumbag will be stoned at the stake! Marvelous.
Depends on which forum members form the jury. Some would pass not-guilty judgement for murderers if they do it for the cause they care about or pass death sentence if someone said something offensive and hurt someone's feelings.
Maybe.
So what's the solution? AI convicting people seems like a step towards Cyberdyne Systems ruling us all.
Surely this removes all prejudice and would be a good thing to a progressive?
I can think of one downside right away, hacking.
Like jury tampering?"
So doesn’t remove all prejudice like you said ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A.I making decisions because we all do not agree with a decision 12 humans made.
I would rather 12 humans make a wrong decision than a computer make any decision for me."
Agreed. The computer says no comedy sketch exists for a reason. AI might be great but god know how our brains do it but we seem to be able to put on additional layer of context and common sense (most of the time).
Its how we have ended up with pretty bad policies for benefits etc where the base logic is sound , (ie lets house people in homes with the number of bedrooms required for the household) but it turns out a flow chart, tick box, yes/ no, black white no shades of grey implementation turns out to be terrible ( oh sorry we can’t find you something smaller and we have already kitted all of this out to help you with your disability but too many rooms so we have to charge you ) . Why would AI Jury be any better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim."
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man."
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as valid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man.
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as valid"
where's this from ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man.
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as validwhere's this from ?"
There are plenty of commentaries on this on main stream news and legal outlets. Unfortunately fab has a policy stating that users can’t share links or refer to other websites so you’ll have to look it up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man.
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as validwhere's this from ?
There are plenty of commentaries on this on main stream news and legal outlets. Unfortunately fab has a policy stating that users can’t share links or refer to other websites so you’ll have to look it up"
feel free to DM. I haven't seen a decent explanation written anywhere of the defence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are plenty of commentaries on this on main stream news and legal outlets. Unfortunately fab has a policy stating that users can’t share links or refer to other websites so you’ll have to look it up"
Fab has no such policy. The forum rules explicitly say that links to mainstream new sites are permissible. Indeed, there's a link in the very first post of this thread.
Even if you're too paranoid to post a link, you can at least give us some search terms to use to find the information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man.
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as valid"
So we can now go round damaging the property of any company who invests in technology that may affect climate change?
Dangerous precedent to set... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118"
It is quiet easy in a "common law" court to dismiss yourself from procedings, what is the crime, who is the person making the claim, only a flesh and blood human being can make a claim of loss or injury, the head of hsbc is not going to turn up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So we can now go round damaging the property of any company who invests in technology that may affect climate change?
Dangerous precedent to set... "
Sounds like legalising vigilantism … committing a crime is now ok if it incentivises someone else to change their behaviour  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
"Why did those protestors take hammers and chisels to those windows? Was it to free the dogs from inside?
No. They argued that it was necessary to prevent a greater crime being committed. Sounds like a crap excuse to me, but the only people that have heard all of the evidence felt that it was a reasonable argument.
That doesn't change the fact that they clearly weren't breaking the windows to facilitate a crime, and that they can still be held liable for the costs in court if HSBC choose to claim.
If love to know what their 'lawful excuse' was that made it necessary to prevent a greater crime.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As I said already, I think I may be losing faith in my fellow man.
HSBC are one of the largest investors in technology which is aggravating climate change. They’ve invested £80bn in the last five years
The same climate change which UNICEF have stated leads to 20,000 children losing their homes every day
The argument, which the Court accepted (including the Judge, not just the Jury), was that £500,000 worth of damage would incentivise HSBC to alter their investments in a way which other incentives couldn’t. The argument accepted was that this was proportionate to the billions HSBC’s which HSBC had available to fix the windows compared to the urgent need to protect those 20,000 children from loss of life, homes, family and human rights.
The trial took just over a week. In that time over a hundred thousand children lost their homes because of HSBC’s investments
The Judge agreed it was a valid defence and allowed it to be put to the Jury
The Jury came to their conclusion in two hours
Dismiss the jury and the Judge would still have accepted the defence as valid
So we can now go round damaging the property of any company who invests in technology that may affect climate change?
Dangerous precedent to set...
Sounds like legalising vigilantism … committing a crime is now ok if it incentivises someone else to change their behaviour "
This trial didn’t set the precedent. The English have had the right to defend themselves, their homes, and those around them since before the Courts existed
In fact, the Courts and the Police are built around this principle. When the Police were first set up, they weren’t a government body. The Courts didn’t believe they should get involved in the disputes of common folk
The Police were private citizens for hundreds of years before the 1829 Metropolitan Police Act was introduced
If someone attempts to rob your home, should you not have the right to attack them in defense? What if that person is outside trying to set home home on fire? What if they were leaving your home alone and attacking your neighbor who couldn’t defend themselves? Why does that neighbor have to be on the same street?
The requirement for any action to be proportionate is fundamental to the defense. If it’s disproportionate, there’s no defense
If you tie the burglar up and torture them to death - that isn’t proportionate
If you destroy a small business because they’ve just purchased an SUV, that isn’t proportionate
If you smash the windows of a $152B organization, with links to organised crime and enough resources and security to repair those windows within the day without disruption to business: the court has deemed it proportionate
This isn’t new law. You’re only coming across it now because you don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s all
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Open season on ULEZ camera in the name of social justice then. And if you get caught you have a ready made defence against the man "
I’m not following the ULEZ debate. What harm would you be preventing by doing that and where is the urgency? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Open season on ULEZ camera in the name of social justice then. And if you get caught you have a ready made defence against the man
I’m not following the ULEZ debate. What harm would you be preventing by doing that and where is the urgency?"
Maybe financial harm? People are going hungry and getting sick. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Open season on ULEZ camera in the name of social justice then. And if you get caught you have a ready made defence against the man
I’m not following the ULEZ debate. What harm would you be preventing by doing that and where is the urgency?
Maybe financial harm? People are going hungry and getting sick."
What’s the link with the cameras? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The problem with "they are stopping another crime from happening" argument is that the other crime they are pointing out is not legally a crime. Investing in fossil fuels isn't a crime. On the other hand, if you are committing a crime to prevent robbery or murder, it's fine because robbery and murder are crimes.
Investing in fossil fuels isn't legally a crime. It's considered morally wrong by a specific set of people and they are using mob justice to enforce it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Open season on ULEZ camera in the name of social justice then. And if you get caught you have a ready made defence against the man
I’m not following the ULEZ debate. What harm would you be preventing by doing that and where is the urgency?
Maybe financial harm? People are going hungry and getting sick.
What’s the link with the cameras?"
The cameras cost normal folk money, money that they actually need to feed their families.
For someone who appears very clued up, I'm shocked you can't make the link. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with "they are stopping another crime from happening" argument is that the other crime they are pointing out is not legally a crime. Investing in fossil fuels isn't a crime. On the other hand, if you are committing a crime to prevent robbery or murder, it's fine because robbery and murder are crimes.
Investing in fossil fuels isn't legally a crime. It's considered morally wrong by a specific set of people and they are using mob justice to enforce it."
The “preventing another crime argument” wasn’t the Defence put forward
The Defence put forward was “preventing imminent harm”
The harm doesn’t need to be caused by a criminal act |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with "they are stopping another crime from happening" argument is that the other crime they are pointing out is not legally a crime. Investing in fossil fuels isn't a crime. On the other hand, if you are committing a crime to prevent robbery or murder, it's fine because robbery and murder are crimes.
Investing in fossil fuels isn't legally a crime. It's considered morally wrong by a specific set of people and they are using mob justice to enforce it.
The “preventing another crime argument” wasn’t the Defence put forward
The Defence put forward was “preventing imminent harm”
The harm doesn’t need to be caused by a criminal act"
Who decides what is a harm? If investing in fossil fuel companies is a harm and it's not criminal to break their windows, what does it mean for actual fossil fuel companies? If I buy shares from a fossil fuel company, does it mean someone can break my home windows and just pay the money for it without taking criminal responsibility? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Open season on ULEZ camera in the name of social justice then. And if you get caught you have a ready made defence against the man
I’m not following the ULEZ debate. What harm would you be preventing by doing that and where is the urgency?
Maybe financial harm? People are going hungry and getting sick.
What’s the link with the cameras?
The cameras cost normal folk money, money that they actually need to feed their families.
For someone who appears very clued up, I'm shocked you can't make the link. "
I said very openly that I’ve not been following the debate. There is a world outside of london, you know?
I don’t know enough about it, but I imagine the argument would pivot on whether or not you could show that destroying all of the cameras is a proportionate act
Are those cameras disproportionately affecting those on lower incomes? Are those on lower incomes finding that a substantial portion of their economic strain is caused by those cameras? Are there other factors which overshadow the impact of the cameras?
I’m not looking into ULEZ because I’ve spent enough time on here already. There’s an arguable case from what you’re saying, but whether or not that makes it a valid defence is a different question. If that’s something you want to look into then you go right ahead |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with "they are stopping another crime from happening" argument is that the other crime they are pointing out is not legally a crime. Investing in fossil fuels isn't a crime. On the other hand, if you are committing a crime to prevent robbery or murder, it's fine because robbery and murder are crimes.
Investing in fossil fuels isn't legally a crime. It's considered morally wrong by a specific set of people and they are using mob justice to enforce it.
The “preventing another crime argument” wasn’t the Defence put forward
The Defence put forward was “preventing imminent harm”
The harm doesn’t need to be caused by a criminal act
Who decides what is a harm? If investing in fossil fuel companies is a harm and it's not criminal to break their windows, what does it mean for actual fossil fuel companies? If I buy shares from a fossil fuel company, does it mean someone can break my home windows and just pay the money for it without taking criminal responsibility?"
I’m wrapping this up because we’re going in circles
The jury decides if it’s harm although the Judge also expressed that he accepted the argument.
Do you plan on buying £80bn worth of shares over the next fives years? If so, then you would be a key player in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of children. In those circumstances I really don’t see why I or the Courts should care any more about your windows than you do about those families
If, as is more likely, you’re talking about investing a couple of thousand or less, then it would be disproportionate to attack your home. You wouldn’t exactly be a key influencer on the industry. No proportionality = no defence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with "they are stopping another crime from happening" argument is that the other crime they are pointing out is not legally a crime. Investing in fossil fuels isn't a crime. On the other hand, if you are committing a crime to prevent robbery or murder, it's fine because robbery and murder are crimes.
Investing in fossil fuels isn't legally a crime. It's considered morally wrong by a specific set of people and they are using mob justice to enforce it.
The “preventing another crime argument” wasn’t the Defence put forward
The Defence put forward was “preventing imminent harm”
The harm doesn’t need to be caused by a criminal act
Who decides what is a harm? If investing in fossil fuel companies is a harm and it's not criminal to break their windows, what does it mean for actual fossil fuel companies? If I buy shares from a fossil fuel company, does it mean someone can break my home windows and just pay the money for it without taking criminal responsibility?
I’m wrapping this up because we’re going in circles
The jury decides if it’s harm although the Judge also expressed that he accepted the argument.
Do you plan on buying £80bn worth of shares over the next fives years? If so, then you would be a key player in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of children. In those circumstances I really don’t see why I or the Courts should care any more about your windows than you do about those families
If, as is more likely, you’re talking about investing a couple of thousand or less, then it would be disproportionate to attack your home. You wouldn’t exactly be a key influencer on the industry. No proportionality = no defence"
Ok so whether something is harmful or not is arbitrarily decided by how much money is invested? Given this judgement, can someone go there again and break HSBC windows and claim no criminal responsibility for the same reason?
I can also put it another way. If fossil fuels aren't extracted, lot more people will die because food, medicines and other important things cannot be transported to places. More people will die because hospitals don't get sufficient electricity.
It's insane that people are doing so much mental gymnastics to justify mob justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's insane that people are doing so much mental gymnastics to justify mob justice."
I think if you appreciate the legal profession, that is kind of the point.
Defence and Prosecution lawyers are trained/need a certain sort of mental acrobatics to research/discover case precedents, and then present them in compelling ways for a judge to rule upon.
That sets case precedent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Jury found them not guilty after querying things. One of the things was how did the bank get a quote of half a million quid to repair/replace the windows. That's probably what swayed it to not guilty as folk don't like banks at the best of times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Jury found them not guilty after querying things. One of the things was how did the bank get a quote of half a million quid to repair/replace the windows. That's probably what swayed it to not guilty as folk don't like banks at the best of times."
That quote seems not unreasonable to me. There were 9 protestors charged, so I'm assuming they broke 9 windows. Each pane was custom-sized, and with complex coatings. Looking at the way they broke, it seems they have some other security features built into them. Given that it's a rush job, I can imagine that £500k was quoted by the glass company.
If they only broke the 3 windows that I see in the pictures, that quote seems a lot less reasonable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118"
But somehow we are to beleive judges get everything correct.
The amount of piss poor judgements in modern courts is atrocious to the point we are becoming a laughing stock.
It happened with the people in Bristol and the statue too.
That had to go to appeal.
It's honestly frightening how badly wrong judges get these cases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118
But somehow we are to beleive judges get everything correct.
The amount of piss poor judgements in modern courts is atrocious to the point we are becoming a laughing stock.
It happened with the people in Bristol and the statue too.
That had to go to appeal.
It's honestly frightening how badly wrong judges get these cases."
wasn't this a jury ?
As above, we dont really know how this case was argued as limited reporting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118
But somehow we are to beleive judges get everything correct.
The amount of piss poor judgements in modern courts is atrocious to the point we are becoming a laughing stock.
It happened with the people in Bristol and the statue too.
That had to go to appeal.
It's honestly frightening how badly wrong judges get these cases.wasn't this a jury ?
As above, we dont really know how this case was argued as limited reporting. "
The the jury were instructed incorrectly by the judge.
Either way. There was never any way they should have been found not guilty.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118
But somehow we are to beleive judges get everything correct.
The amount of piss poor judgements in modern courts is atrocious to the point we are becoming a laughing stock.
It happened with the people in Bristol and the statue too.
That had to go to appeal.
It's honestly frightening how badly wrong judges get these cases.wasn't this a jury ?
As above, we dont really know how this case was argued as limited reporting.
The the jury were instructed incorrectly by the judge.
Either way. There was never any way they should have been found not guilty.
"
do you have links to what the judge instructed ? I've found limited court reporting.
Until I can see the details I couldnt comment on whether I believe there were merits to not find them guilty or criminal damage. The result is a suprise. It doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The XR activists who smashed HSBC windows manged to argue that it wasn't criminal damage.
Here we have it folks, it's OK to go and smash bank windows without any worries.
For those who think this is a good thing, be careful what you wish for.
https://news.sky.com/story/extinction-rebellion-activists-who-smashed-hsbc-windows-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-damage-13010118
But somehow we are to beleive judges get everything correct.
The amount of piss poor judgements in modern courts is atrocious to the point we are becoming a laughing stock.
It happened with the people in Bristol and the statue too.
That had to go to appeal.
It's honestly frightening how badly wrong judges get these cases.wasn't this a jury ?
As above, we dont really know how this case was argued as limited reporting.
The the jury were instructed incorrectly by the judge.
Either way. There was never any way they should have been found not guilty.
do you have links to what the judge instructed ? I've found limited court reporting.
Until I can see the details I couldnt comment on whether I believe there were merits to not find them guilty or criminal damage. The result is a suprise. It doesn't mean it's wrong.
"
I am making an assumption here, because there's nos and way they should have found the 4 bot guilty had they been isntructed correctly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
