• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.

      Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 years ago

            Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.

            I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 years ago

              It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.

              She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.