Just Stop Oil will no longer throw soup at paintings as it ends direct action
Just Stop Oil is to stop throwing soup on paintings and slow marching in streets as it announces its final protest.
In a statement, the environmental campaign group said: "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history.
"We've kept over 4.4 billion barrels of oil in the ground and the courts have ruled new oil and gas licences unlawful.
"So it is the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets. But it is not the end of trials, of tagging and surveillance, of fines, probation and years in prison."
It added: "As corporations and billionaires corrupt political systems across the world, we need a different approach. We are creating a new strategy, to face this reality and to carry our responsibilities at this time. Nothing short of a revolution is going to protect us from the coming storms."
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
3 days ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Dale Vince's High Court claim against Daily Mail publisher thrown out
Mr Vince brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article headlined 'Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor', published in June 2023. The story reported that the Labour Party was handing back money to donor Davide Serra with a picture showing Mr Vince holding a Just Stop Oil banner. This picture, published in print and on The Mail+ app, was changed to one of Mr Serra online 47 minutes after publication, while the original picture of Mr Vince remained in the print version. An employment tribunal in 2022 heard Mr Serra had made sexist comments to a female colleague which were found to amount to unlawful harassment related to sex. Mr Vince claimed ANL misused his personal data and that the publication of his photograph with this story would lead readers to believe he had been accused of sexual harassment. ANL had defended the claim, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court in London that it was an abuse of process and a 'resurrection' of a libel claim that was dismissed last year. In a judgment on Monday, a High Court judge threw out the data protection claim. Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim. 'As in the defamation proceedings, it is accepted that on reading the text of the article published in Mail+ and the Daily Mail any ordinary reader would very quickly realise that Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment. 'Considered on this basis the personal data relating to Mr Vince was processed fairly.' He said there was 'every reason' why the data protection claim should have been heard with the defamation claim last year. 'Both claims arose out of the same event, the publication of the article in Mail+ and the Daily Mail,' he added. 'Both claims rely on the same factual circumstances, namely the juxtaposition of the headline, photographs and caption, and the contention that the combination of the headline and the photograph created the misleading impression that Mr Vince had been accused of sexual harassment.' Following the decision, Mr Vince said he planned to appeal. He said: 'What we're dealing with here is a media law that predates the internet. Think about that. Essentially, UK law says that people read entire articles and not just headlines. 'We all know this is untrue, the internet has changed everything, modern attention spans are famously small and shrinking, dwell times on articles are measured in seconds and media organisations have an abundance of data on this.' He continued: 'The judge said if you read the whole story, you'd realise the headline was not about me, begging the question why was my face highlighted in the articles perhaps. 'But more importantly, people don't read entire articles, the law assumes it – but does so wrongly, against all data and against common sense.'
The Guardian
03-06-2025
- The Guardian
I received a 30-month jail sentence for nonviolent resistance. Why so harsh? Because protest works
Last week, at Minshull Street crown court in Manchester, I was sentenced to two and half years in prison for conspiring to intentionally cause a public nuisance. The prosecution's case was that I intended to 'obstruct the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large' – in other words, that I was part of Just Stop Oil's plan to obstruct planes at Manchester airport. I did intend that – and I have a defence for my actions. The offence of public nuisance – which falls under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – was traditionally and frequently used to prosecute significant environmental offences. It punished big corporations causing real harm to the general public by poisoning water, polluting air, emitting dust and noise or dumping chemical waste. There is no irony lost in the fact that the same offence in statutory form is now being zealously deployed to prosecute environmental protesters. After spending nine months in prison on remand, my stomach was tied in knots but my head was held high as I climbed the steep, gloomy concrete steps from the court cells into the glass dock, which stands in the centre of the imposing Victorian gothic courtroom in Manchester. At last I was due to find out my sentence. At the end of the long ruling our fate was made clear: Leanorah Ward, Margaret Reid, Daniel Knorr and I were given 18 months, 18 months, 24 months and 30 months respectively. I was taken back to prison, where I remain, with time left to serve. Make no mistake, this sentence was passed because nonviolent resistance has the potential to spark revolutionary change. The judge, Jason MacAdam, deemed it necessary to hand down 'deterrent' sentences in order to inspire fear in others considering similar actions. There was much in the judgment that I disagree with, but I do agree with the judge's assertion that I considered 'the cause to trump inconvenience to others whether that be the general public at Manchester airport or other court users'. The climate crisis is not our cause; it's a matter of life or death for everyone. We set out to disrupt the planes at Manchester airport because history shows that resistance can be a catalyst for change, and science shows that we need to change our destructive way of life now to prevent disaster. When we were arrested on the way to airport, we had a banner in our pockets that said 'Oil Kills'. When we were sentenced in court we each raised signs saying, 'Billions will die'. The science is clear, and the judge is right: I consider the facts to be so alarming, so stark, so utterly heartbreaking that disruption to everyday life is warranted. And I have spent each day in custody, questioning why others equipped with the same knowledge as I have do not feel the duty to act in the same way that I do. The judge agreed that we acted on our conscience, but for sentencing he wanted to see remorse. But how can it be possible to take part in an act of conscience and then show remorse? How could I be morally compelled to take action one week, and then filled with regret for acting the next? I took action to disrupt the status quo, as I believed that carrying on as normal meant complicity in many unnecessary deaths. I pleaded not guilty and chose to defend my actions in court because I wanted to present the case that I was acting out of necessity to prevent harm. But this defence was ruled out. The judge stated that 'the stance taken by you [by pleading not guilty] distinguishes you all from others who have chosen to follow the long and honourable tradition of civil disobedience on conscientious grounds, that is accepting that you have broken the law and accepting the punishment that follows'. In doing this he not only disregarded the 1670 trial of Penn and Mead (where Quakers pleaded not guilty to unlawful assembly), the Ploughshare Four trial (where peace activists defended themselves by arguing that they acted to prevent harm), and the Rivonia trial of Nelson Mandela (who defended himself against conspiracy charges brought by the apartheid South African government). They all pleaded not guilty. He also denies the very essence of the tradition of protest: its ability to evolve and adapt to different contexts in order to find the confrontational edge essential to nonviolent action. Just Stop Oil is not a re-enactment group, it is an action group, which has taken a strategic decision to continue resistance into the courtroom. By asserting the necessity for our actions, we include the legal system in the debate over our duty and responsibilities. Later in the judgment, MacAdam appeared to reveal outright contempt for those in resistance, as he mused 'how wrong it is in a free and democratic society to consider that your own belief in the worthiness of a cause to be justification for breaking the law'. As if centuries of political and social struggle had never taken place, as if the current 'free and democratic society' has delivered the protection and defence we need from ever-increasing heating and extreme weather events. My time incarcerated will be spent in service. I will continue to follow in the noble tradition of civil resistance, using my time to read about past campaigns and the people behind them. People who also served time in prison, in the belief that despite the reaction of the state, their actions were a necessary public service. I will consider how to hold those responsible for the greatest crime ever committed against humanity to account. Indigo Rumbelow is co-founder of Just Stop Oil. She is serving a sentence in HMP Styal
Telegraph
31-05-2025
- Telegraph
Witch ‘thrown out by Druids after being accused of transphobia'
A witch has claimed she was thrown off a Druid training course amid allegations that she was 'transphobic' in a row over women's rights. Angela Howard claimed she joined the British Druid Order (BDO) in 2020 to find 'spiritual healing' after being sexually assaulted by a trans woman. Ms Howard, 48, said she was later 'knighted' as a 'warrior princess' at Stonehenge and began training as a student 'bard', which is a division of modern Druidry. But after the Supreme Court ruled that transgender women were not legally women in April, Howard claimed she was banned from continuing her training and had her BDO membership revoked because she supported the exclusion of trans women from single-sex spaces for women. Ms Howard also claimed she was 'defamed' and branded 'transphobic' by members of the religious advocacy group the Pagan Federation. She responded to a post on the federation's official Facebook page entitled: 'Statement of Support for Trans People from the Pagan Federation'. The post states: 'Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and all non-binary genders are valid. This is not up for debate with the Pagan Federation.' 'I cannot safely wear a witch's hat in public' According to The Times, Ms Howard said she responded to this statement by commenting that there were situations in which women needed single-sex spaces, citing changing rooms, women's refuges and prisons. She referred to her own experience of being sexually assaulted by a trans woman. She claimed her comments were later deleted, and that she was blocked from viewing the contents of the Facebook page after she criticised an article describing the court ruling as 'a triumph for bigotry'. Shortly afterwards, Ms Howard claimed she was expelled from the site after a member of the Pagan Federation support team said she had been 'more unequivocally transphobic' in her comments. Ms Howard has now lodged a written complaint with the British Druid Order. In it, she pointed out that women and girls were the 'largest and most consistently oppressed group worldwide'. She added: 'Even here in the UK, I cannot safely wear a witch's hat in public without receiving threatening or fearful looks. 'It is profoundly ironic, then, that within modern Paganism and Druidry (movements that should be committed to liberation, healing and truth) we are witnessing a kind of spiritual witch-hunt against those who speak up for the rights, safety and dignity of women and girls.' In a second complaint to the Pagan Federation, she accused the charity of breaching its own code of conduct and the Equality Act 2010. She claimed that she had been 'penalised' for expressing her gender-critical beliefs. The Pagan Federation said in a statement: 'We have a robust complaints procedure, which is designed to ensure fairness and accountability across all aspects of Pagan Federation activities. The process is accessible by both members and non-members alike. 'We have a policy of not commenting on complaints made under our procedures, which may be ongoing. This is to ensure the fairness of the process and to protect all parties involved.' A spokesman for the British Druid Order said it had received a complaint that was being reviewed and had no further comment to make.
