Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
World Snooker Championship Stopped
Apologies if this has already been posted - i did do a search but found nothing.
Totally surprised that this cretin didn't get a few snooker cues wrapped around his head.
https:/
Totally surprised that this cretin didn't get a few snooker cues wrapped around his head.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ken4155. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//and damage to property will extend generously to the cleaning costs of 1 snooker table//
Actually the costs of re-clothing one snooker table. The baize was damaged beyond repair. Re-clothing a club table costs a minimum of £500. A competition table probably two or three times that amount.
//... it's not legal but it is peaceful//
And that makes it OK?
//…no it does not count as harm newjudge//
In your (misguided) opinion. But of course it’s harm. Have a look at the sentencing guidelines for Criminal Damage (which I believe at least one of the two protesters has been charged with):
https:/
You will note that when sentencing, Magistrates or judges must assess the “harm” the offence has caused. Guidance is given which is headed “The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors of the case.” There then follows a categorisation of the “harm” caused (based principally, but not exhaustively on the value of the damage caused). Just because nobody was beaten up, it does not follow that no harm was caused. Virtually all offences involving damage to property or injury to people results in harm to a varying degree.
You suggest that this was merely “inconvenience”. Firstly, even if that was so, what gives an individual the right to cause inconvenience to so many people? But it goes further than that. People in the audience witnessing the idiot who spread his orange powder over himself and the snooker table had no idea what it was, or what his motives were. More importantly, they had no idea what harm it might cause them. Apart from the inconvenience he caused, it is likely that some of the less robust members of the audience may have been quite distressed by what they witnessed.
The UK is doing more than most to reduce the alleged causes of climate change. Its pursuit of the wildly unachievable “Net Zero” target is leading to massive costs and will have next to no effect on global emissions. Frankly I would far rather the “Just Stop Oil” protesters tried their luck in China or the USA. But in the meantime perhaps they could consider gluing themselves to the railway line which serves Drax power station in Yorkshire with 7 million tons of freshly felled timber each and every year. At least that would prevent the creative accounting which is used to suggest that power plant is “carbon neutral”.
Actually the costs of re-clothing one snooker table. The baize was damaged beyond repair. Re-clothing a club table costs a minimum of £500. A competition table probably two or three times that amount.
//... it's not legal but it is peaceful//
And that makes it OK?
//…no it does not count as harm newjudge//
In your (misguided) opinion. But of course it’s harm. Have a look at the sentencing guidelines for Criminal Damage (which I believe at least one of the two protesters has been charged with):
https:/
You will note that when sentencing, Magistrates or judges must assess the “harm” the offence has caused. Guidance is given which is headed “The level of harm is assessed by weighing up all the factors of the case.” There then follows a categorisation of the “harm” caused (based principally, but not exhaustively on the value of the damage caused). Just because nobody was beaten up, it does not follow that no harm was caused. Virtually all offences involving damage to property or injury to people results in harm to a varying degree.
You suggest that this was merely “inconvenience”. Firstly, even if that was so, what gives an individual the right to cause inconvenience to so many people? But it goes further than that. People in the audience witnessing the idiot who spread his orange powder over himself and the snooker table had no idea what it was, or what his motives were. More importantly, they had no idea what harm it might cause them. Apart from the inconvenience he caused, it is likely that some of the less robust members of the audience may have been quite distressed by what they witnessed.
The UK is doing more than most to reduce the alleged causes of climate change. Its pursuit of the wildly unachievable “Net Zero” target is leading to massive costs and will have next to no effect on global emissions. Frankly I would far rather the “Just Stop Oil” protesters tried their luck in China or the USA. But in the meantime perhaps they could consider gluing themselves to the railway line which serves Drax power station in Yorkshire with 7 million tons of freshly felled timber each and every year. At least that would prevent the creative accounting which is used to suggest that power plant is “carbon neutral”.
"Actually the costs of re-clothing one snooker table. The baize was damaged beyond repair. Re-clothing a club table costs a minimum of £500. A competition table probably two or three times that amount"
boo hoo
"And that makes it OK? "
"legal" and "moral" are completely separate things
"Just because nobody was beaten up, it does not follow that no harm was caused"
i'm sorry but i cannot get upset over a soiled snooker table... it just isn't important.
"Firstly, even if that was so, what gives an individual the right to cause inconvenience to so many people?"
the severity of the climate change crisis... conventional protest does not work but there is some evidence to suggest that if it is made impossible to ignore then some sections of the public are capable of separating their hatred of the protestors from the broader issue they are drawing attention to
"People in the audience witnessing the idiot who spread his orange powder over himself and the snooker table had no idea what it was, or what his motives were."
he was wearing a JSO shirt and shouting about it
"Frankly I would far rather the “Just Stop Oil” protesters tried their luck in China or the USA. "
i do not know if JSO specifically does so in those countries but many brave climate protestors do and put themselves at considerable risk to do so
"perhaps they could consider gluing themselves to the railway line which serves Drax power station in Yorkshire "
i agree!
boo hoo
"And that makes it OK? "
"legal" and "moral" are completely separate things
"Just because nobody was beaten up, it does not follow that no harm was caused"
i'm sorry but i cannot get upset over a soiled snooker table... it just isn't important.
"Firstly, even if that was so, what gives an individual the right to cause inconvenience to so many people?"
the severity of the climate change crisis... conventional protest does not work but there is some evidence to suggest that if it is made impossible to ignore then some sections of the public are capable of separating their hatred of the protestors from the broader issue they are drawing attention to
"People in the audience witnessing the idiot who spread his orange powder over himself and the snooker table had no idea what it was, or what his motives were."
he was wearing a JSO shirt and shouting about it
"Frankly I would far rather the “Just Stop Oil” protesters tried their luck in China or the USA. "
i do not know if JSO specifically does so in those countries but many brave climate protestors do and put themselves at considerable risk to do so
"perhaps they could consider gluing themselves to the railway line which serves Drax power station in Yorkshire "
i agree!
//i'm sorry but i cannot get upset over a soiled snooker table... it just isn't important.//
In your opinion. In the opinion of others it is, and there view is equally as valid as yours.
//…the severity of the climate change crisis...//
The severity of the alleged climate change crisis (and it’s the crisis that I term “alleged”, not climate change) is debateable. What isn’t quite so debateable is that the UK’s contribution to global emissions is insignificant. So insignificant, in fact, that if they all ceased entirely tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference to that alleged crisis.
But let’s get real: there is next to nothing that mankind can do which will effect the way the climate is changing. Certainly impoverishing the population will not help and nor will spreading orange powder on a snooker table. There are two camps: those who are concerned about climate change and who number some protesters among them and those who are not. Those who are not concerned about it will not have their minds changed by these protests. All they are doing is entrenching the attitude of the unconcerned and I don't know where the evidence is you speak of that will make campaigns of sustained protest successful in that respect
The particular individual at Sheffield is, apparently, a 25 year old student. He needs to stop faffing about and get a job and “Just Stop Oil” needs to just stop being silly.
In your opinion. In the opinion of others it is, and there view is equally as valid as yours.
//…the severity of the climate change crisis...//
The severity of the alleged climate change crisis (and it’s the crisis that I term “alleged”, not climate change) is debateable. What isn’t quite so debateable is that the UK’s contribution to global emissions is insignificant. So insignificant, in fact, that if they all ceased entirely tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference to that alleged crisis.
But let’s get real: there is next to nothing that mankind can do which will effect the way the climate is changing. Certainly impoverishing the population will not help and nor will spreading orange powder on a snooker table. There are two camps: those who are concerned about climate change and who number some protesters among them and those who are not. Those who are not concerned about it will not have their minds changed by these protests. All they are doing is entrenching the attitude of the unconcerned and I don't know where the evidence is you speak of that will make campaigns of sustained protest successful in that respect
The particular individual at Sheffield is, apparently, a 25 year old student. He needs to stop faffing about and get a job and “Just Stop Oil” needs to just stop being silly.
everything i write is my opinion newjudge... clue is in my username next to it
"there is next to nothing that mankind can do which will effect the way the climate is changing."
collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions will effect climate change in a more positive way than not doing it will... the consequences of the latter will be much worse than a snooker table getting soiled im afraid
we did it with CFCs and prevented serious damage to the ozone layer... and people had to fight to get that done... we now need to do the same with greenhouse gases... with the exception of nuclear weapons there is not a more urgent issue facing humanity
"there is next to nothing that mankind can do which will effect the way the climate is changing."
collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions will effect climate change in a more positive way than not doing it will... the consequences of the latter will be much worse than a snooker table getting soiled im afraid
we did it with CFCs and prevented serious damage to the ozone layer... and people had to fight to get that done... we now need to do the same with greenhouse gases... with the exception of nuclear weapons there is not a more urgent issue facing humanity
I believe any protestor with any cause, has to weigh the methods of their protest, and the effect of people, against the likelihood of people being moved to support the cause the protestor supports.
In all most all cases - and this is certainly one - the protest is the news, not the cause the protest is about.
This thread backs up my argument - virtually all against the protestor, and discussing the damage he has done, to varying degrees, and one lone supporter, who possibly already agreed with the Stop Oil position before this latest demonstration of their views.
You bring people round to a point of view they don't already hold, by education and persuasion of the strength of your argument, not by simply disrupting something and shouting a bit, which brings no-one to your table, in fact, quite the opposite.
I understand the attention-seeking attitude of these people, but if they seriously imagine that their action furthers their cause, or draws anything by negative attention to it, then they are naive in the extreme.
In all most all cases - and this is certainly one - the protest is the news, not the cause the protest is about.
This thread backs up my argument - virtually all against the protestor, and discussing the damage he has done, to varying degrees, and one lone supporter, who possibly already agreed with the Stop Oil position before this latest demonstration of their views.
You bring people round to a point of view they don't already hold, by education and persuasion of the strength of your argument, not by simply disrupting something and shouting a bit, which brings no-one to your table, in fact, quite the opposite.
I understand the attention-seeking attitude of these people, but if they seriously imagine that their action furthers their cause, or draws anything by negative attention to it, then they are naive in the extreme.
One wonders why these types of organisations aren't declared illegal. This goes beyond acceptable protest. New legislation should be introduced as soon as reasonable: or maybe someone might want to consider expanding the legal definition of terrorism in order to cover such acts and their organised perpetrators.
OG - // ... or maybe someone might want to consider expanding the legal definition of terrorism in order to cover such acts and their organised perpetrators. //
Trying to define 'terrorism' is impossible, as a concept, never mind as a legal framework for laws to be created around.
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter' and as I have said often on this site, the notion of what is actually 'terrorism' depends on whose gun barrel you are staring down.
The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in our civil rights, and yes, that does not include criminal damage, for which charges will no doubt be brought.
But to take away people's right to protest, when what we really want to do is try and tighten up the methods they are able to use to do so, is a large step to take.
Hopefully the law will be invoked to ensure that proper punishments will be applied, but in the nature of protest, that is virtually guaranteed not to stop further protests of a similar nature.
Trying to define 'terrorism' is impossible, as a concept, never mind as a legal framework for laws to be created around.
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter' and as I have said often on this site, the notion of what is actually 'terrorism' depends on whose gun barrel you are staring down.
The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in our civil rights, and yes, that does not include criminal damage, for which charges will no doubt be brought.
But to take away people's right to protest, when what we really want to do is try and tighten up the methods they are able to use to do so, is a large step to take.
Hopefully the law will be invoked to ensure that proper punishments will be applied, but in the nature of protest, that is virtually guaranteed not to stop further protests of a similar nature.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.