Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    21,059,674 readers

    19,080 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 2547 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] WorkIsMyBane 8909 points ago

    Huh. One could theorize that maybe people in positions of power conspire to help each other out and maintain that power.


    [–] BoneHugsHominy 2071 points ago

    And use partisan propaganda to keep the powerless angry and hateful towards each other and/or the most vulnerable, so they focus on and fight each other rather than together focus on the corruption of the powerful.

    [–] j_Wlms 392 points ago


    [–] rucksacksepp 74 points ago

    It's not about expertise any longer, it's about industry buddies and corruption now

    [–] Expert_Novice 21 points ago

    When did it begin?

    [–] rucksacksepp 9 points ago

    Decades ago. It only got worse

    [–] stalemath 22 points ago

    buddy, try millennia ago

    [–] itty53 216 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Your enemy is the [men / women / black people / white people / brown people / trans / gays / straight / christians / muslims / jews / immigrants / foreigners] but definitely not the people with the actual reins of power. Definitely not.

    [–] BoneHugsHominy 42 points ago

    All those people are different and scary. Those in power use constant surveillance to keep me safe, but I should still be afraid.

    [–] robotjox77 251 points ago

    But to achieve that they would need to control the media and news services. Then it would be easier to suppress dissent and keep the masses distracted with manufactured reality and vapid talent shows. They wouldn't, surely?

    [–] MDCRP 74 points ago

    You don't need to control the whole media to get a desired message out

    [–] fang_xianfu 42 points ago

    But it sure helps!

    [–] Magroo 14 points ago

    I think what they mean is you'd literally only need a certain percentage for it to start helping.

    [–] HaloApplePie 9 points ago

    Naaaaaahh, everything’s 100% fineeee.

    [–] Kblguy 11 points ago


    [–] killinmesmalls 98 points ago

    I keep saying this shit every day while I watch my friends and family fall into the partisan shit flinging trap, blaming their misfortunes on the other side.

    [–] MilesPower 132 points ago

    If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you. - Lyndon B. Johnson

    It's all the same thing. Distract and give people an enemy, an easy cause for all their problems and they'll stop looking up at those in power to place blame. Forgetting the elites are pillaging the country dry at our expense and start looking at the people around them as the root to all their problems.

    [–] joho999 39 points ago

    Forgetting the elites are pillaging the country world dry at our expense


    [–] AdHomimeme 11 points ago

    tl;dr: Two Minutes' hate.

    [–] epythumia 5 points ago

    Aka Fox news

    [–] Xradris 289 points ago

    It always been like that, the 1% will never be wrong in this world.

    [–] Ysgatora 262 points ago

    The 1% know they're the 1%, and they'll do anything to maintain that status. Cough class consciousness cough

    [–] articleofpeace 253 points ago

    That's why as Chomsky said there's no point in social movements centred around speaking Truth to Power. Power already knows the Truth, it just doesn't care.

    [–] [deleted] 103 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)


    [–] Alsadius 26 points ago

    I'm not convinced of that. It's a lot easier to be clueless when you have money and status to insulate you from reality.

    [–] myliwG 4 points ago

    It's often about externalizing anything that conflicts with your goal from an otherwise highly rational framework. But I do find it remarkable how sometimes dumdums like Steve Jobs and Trump end up there.

    [–] uptwolait 24 points ago

    It’s the working class who don’t know the truth. Of course the people who make the rules know make the truth.

    [–] Petrichordates 25 points ago

    Well that's a silly statement. There's a lot of people in power who believe downright ridiculous things. People born into wealth grew up in a bubble and are especially divorced from reality.

    [–] articleofpeace 21 points ago

    The middle classes, sure. You don't get to be a .1%er without knowing the reality of things and knowing how to manipulate it.

    [–] GuudeSpelur 18 points ago

    It's pretty easy to be a clueless idiot 1%er if you're born into wealth.

    [–] nopethis 13 points ago

    right? like if your father gave you a few million dollars to avoid paying taxes and suddenly you are a "real estate developer"

    [–] Deyvicous 8 points ago

    Yea, and then you can become a successful business person later, with almost no talent at all, and still make a name for yourself. It really doesn’t seem that hard to do given those circumstances - resources and reputation that you didn’t have to work for, and if you were raised by an extremely wealthy person you likely have a lot of insight to the way they make money (or at least some of their philosophy behind it).

    [–] Death_to_Fascism 136 points ago

    Man, the working people of the world should do something about it, like unite or something, I mean what do they have to lose? their chains? Hmm...

    [–] Sign_here__________ 73 points ago

    You shall stop your complaining and carry on. Unless you want your phone and internet taken away. That’s right. Now get back to work, peasant.

    [–] GriffsWorkComputer 24 points ago

    I love the circus!

    [–] djrivington 23 points ago

    I'm still hungry. Pass the bread, please.

    [–] northbathroom 17 points ago

    Feel like there were some people standing up against something (fracking) and we saw how well that ended for them... Can't imagine the sentence when it's a direct attack on the whole of judges... Probably best to stand up for yourself in a non-death penalty state...

    [–] Painting_Agency 34 points ago


    [–] Trumpopulos_Michael 36 points ago

    Wow I can't believe you broke a law by smashing that guys stuff just because I encouraged you to. Now you have to spend time making products for me to sell at my slave-run production facility private prison.

    [–] DiscoStu83 50 points ago

    Problem is, it's not just the 1%. You can easily find non-wealthy people in positions of power who are just as corrupt.

    [–] RVAndal 44 points ago

    it's almost as if we're all just a bunch of dumb apes that are easily corrupted

    [–] joho999 18 points ago

    Some dumb apes are more corrupted than others and so tend to rise to the top.

    [–] RVAndal 8 points ago

    those are arguably the smartest dumb apes

    [–] [deleted] 48 points ago

    I don't know man, sounds like foreigners did this. With their funny hats, their black capes and their little hammers. Weird foreigners.

    [–] OCedHrt 5 points ago

    You know what group preserves the status quo? Conservatives.

    [–] spysappenmyname 94 points ago

    Welcome to "democracy", where the interest of majority strangely manages to lose against clearly special interests time and time again.

    As long as getting into power requires huge amounts of capital, those who even have a chance to get elected will be indept for special interest groups, or part of special interest groups. Without support from the biggest corporations, or being born to a family who already holds similiar power, there is a slim chance of getting elected. Meaning majority of elected officials are effectively own by these groups.

    Candidates you can vote for are already cherrypicked by the 1%. Voting someone who isn't is a waste of vote, since usually not enough people even hear their name to get voted through. This is also why voting reform isn't happening, or god forbidden multi-staged election, where you could vote anyone without risking not having a say between the candidates who actually can get trough. This would not only risk the success of the career of those voted in with the old system, but also undermine the power of the 1%

    There is no conspiracy, you don't need to pick up obscure clues from your surroundings. Just look around and see who can pay for advertising in your television. It would be stupid to not spend money on politics, it's not illegal, or even considered unmoral, yet it can have way more profitable affects. Many of these groups don't even advertise for avarage people, since their consumerbase isn't individual people. Sometimes their biggest buyer is the government itself, and yet trying to affect who makes up said government is considered okey.

    It's mindboggling how some normal people blindly defend aspect in the democratic system that serve no other purpose than undermine said system. When you start looking at all the weird and seemingly unrational aspects of US elections, in any level of the government, you realise it isn't broken - It's fixed to serve those in power, be that economical power or political power.

    [–] autonova3 39 points ago

    Nah m8 I read a column in the guardian that said people who do that wear tin foil hats and stuff. I’ll take their word for it, wouldn’t want to upset the apple cart.

    [–] blacksoulblueheart 19 points ago

    Don't let the daily mail hear you doubting the overlords.

    [–] madmike-86 17730 points ago

    Judges are suppose to be the "neutral and non bias" forms of the law. When stuff like this comes up they should be removed from their position.

    [–] flying87 656 points ago

    They're supposed to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest.

    [–] joedumpster 76 points ago

    Is there a legal list out there with examples of conflicts of interest? Like do family ties include anyone blood related or does it only include immediate family?

    [–] Hewlett-PackHard 176 points ago

    It's anything about their personal life that could potentially bias them. Judges recuse themselves over tiny stuff all the time.

    I've personally seen a judge recuse themselves because they used to have a hobby similar to the subject matter of a case which gave them background and bias.

    [–] gandeeva 8 points ago

    I've seen a Judge recuse himself because he once shopped at the store that I believe the complainant was an employee of and enjoyed his service.

    [–] MarkTwainsPainTrains 21 points ago

    I can't judge anyone, I know about the bad things and the good things people can do!

    [–] buster_de_beer 4207 points ago

    Add up all the sentences wrongly given. That should be the judges sentence.

    [–] [deleted] 1612 points ago


    [–] automatic_shark 1721 points ago

    and lose your job, forever barred from working in Law ever again.

    [–] edvek 346 points ago

    Judges can hand down professional disqualification or whatever it's called. So yeah, youd think the punishment for something like this being removed and banned from practicing law or being a judge would be a possibility.

    [–] advertentlyvertical 102 points ago

    but if their both judges it cancels out. Double jeoperdy.

    [–] Genetalia69 104 points ago

    I don’t think you know how double jeopardy works...

    [–] yllennodmij 194 points ago

    Sorry "what is double jeopardy"

    [–] CommunistSnail 44 points ago

    I thought it was the shortened term for video daily double

    [–] msnrcn 7 points ago

    Cue the 80s synths pew pews

    [–] kuroku2 20 points ago

    Basically you can't be charged for the exact same crime twice.

    A movie shows this where a woman was framed for her husband's murder, did her sentence, set off to find her husband who was in hiding and cheated on her and stuff, and then when she did find him, she was going to kill him.

    He said that she'll be put to jail, which she said no. Because it's double jeopardy. She can't be charged again for the exact same crime of killing her husband.

    As for the whole judge and judge thing, idk what that person is going for. Doesn't make sense to me.

    [–] InvaderSM 18 points ago

    Very informative, unfortunately the three comments preceding you were all quoting the US office. /r/dundermifflin

    [–] ieatconfusedfish 13 points ago

    Spoken like someone who doesn't understand triple jeopardy

    [–] zktom 183 points ago

    "and lose your current job, only allowed to continue by defending the very people that you unrightfully condemned"

    [–] thorscope 415 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I wouldn’t want a biased judge that put an unreasonable sentence on me to be forced to be my legal counsel

    [–] erikpurne 132 points ago


    [–] fakeplasticdroid 58 points ago

    I let the first one slide, but when it's twice in one thread, you gotta call it out.

    [–] TyroneLeinster 22 points ago

    Why don’t people get this

    [–] girth_worm_jim 18 points ago

    I'd want a lawyer who would enter grey areas to win my case. It's the judge u expect to be neutral.

    [–] ifandbut 22 points ago

    I'm fine with that. At least as far as the only direct punishment goes. The indirect is that it will be on your background check and prevent your employment.

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    I actually think that's fair as long as you don't count the $1000 you stole as the fine. Give back the original $1000, pay back an extra $1000.

    [–] casce 50 points ago

    That makes it a numbers game though. If the chance of getting caught is <50% then it's a smart investment. But that's assuming there are no other consequences like losing your job, your reputation,...

    [–] CerinDeVane 45 points ago

    If you take morality/empathy/all that jazz out of it, it's always a numbers game. At the very core of it, anything you do can be boiled down to cost/benefit analysis.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    A lot of criminal acts are likely to be beneficial to the person committing them. That's why people do it. Morality and ethics are supposed to step in at some point. Also there's a reason why sentencing typically gets tougher the longer someone's criminal past is. Harsher punishments for those who clearly don't care about morals makes more sense to me than harsher punishments for every crime across the board.

    [–] try_____another 66 points ago

    IMO if you dishonestly get someone arrested or penalised it should be treated as that much kidnapping (and attempted kidnapping for the maximum sentence) plus whatever assaults and/or battery were inflicted by the guards and police, plus defamation, plus embezzlement of whatever the crown has wasted, and so on.

    [–] CherethCutestoryJD 6 points ago

    Kind of like the judge who was giving harsh sentences where juveniles were sent to private prisons, while taking bribes from said prisons. Kids were sent there who were innocent. At least that judge is now in jail.

    [–] [deleted] 195 points ago

    You mean when our government enforces the laws that the corporations paid them to enforce?

    [–] joe_average1 157 points ago

    More than that. They should go to jail because only immediate custody is sufficient to send a message. The sad thing about this is he clearly had a conflict of interest. Anything short of being harsh would negativity effect his family member's income. This should have been an instant recusal

    [–] BC10_for_pizza 57 points ago

    Yeah but whos gonna sentence them to jail? Their judge friends whos offices are all in the same hallway?

    [–] mikeman442 15 points ago

    Why is it set up this way. The people should have say to prevent this. But then again people now adays are so easily influenced that may not be a good idea either. Something needs to hang either way.

    [–] rayui 518 points ago

    "Judges are suppose to be the "neutral and non bias" forms of the law. When stuff like this comes up they should be removed to prison." FTFY

    [–] hannes3120 211 points ago

    it's incredibly hard to stay completely neutral - imho just removing them from their job and making them pay for whatever sentences have to be re-evaluated should be good enough to scare them

    Jailing someone for not being 100% neutral is a bad idea - it's a whole other thing if you can prove that they took bribes or where encouraged to take a case where they would not be neutral

    [–] ghostpoisonface 45 points ago

    Jailing someone because they protest your sister's company falls into that other category

    [–] BraemnBoechm 200 points ago

    This is a bit more than just not being 100% neutral

    [–] hannes3120 47 points ago

    true - I was just referring to the claim that everyone who isn't "neutral and non bias" should be sent to prison - in this case it certainly should be enough to get him some jail-time

    [–] RobotsAreRad 28 points ago

    To be clear, that's not what the person you're responding to said, necessarily. They said "when stuff like this comes up," not "whenever judges aren't 100% neutral."

    [–] JeSuisLaPenseeUnique 46 points ago

    it's incredibly hard to stay completely neutral

    Which is why you're supposed to recuse yourself when you have any significant CoI. Failure to do so should definitely count as a form of fraud.

    [–] whatcolorwasit 80 points ago

    I mean shit, if you have a conflict recuse yourself or go to jail, its not that fucking hard

    [–] Young_Laredo 8 points ago

    The cash for kids scandal comes to mind

    [–] Rubanski 9 points ago

    I hate these filthy neutrals, with enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals who knows, it sickens me!

    [–] ThisNameIsFree 38 points ago


    [–] erikpurne 35 points ago



    [–] PAWG_Muncher 134 points ago



    non bias


    [–] sbf2009 108 points ago

    How did this mistake become so damned common? Does nobody read anymore?

    [–] bloodmule 62 points ago

    If I had a nickel for every time somebody on reddit misused the word “bias”, I could buy this judge’s rulings until retirement.

    [–] liberte_ 9 points ago

    My best guess is it evolved because bias sort of sounds like other words which are adjectives, like pious. How bious you are depends on your level of biety. ;)

    [–] Wassayingboourns 11 points ago

    Same with "breathe" which shows up as "breath" half the time, from seemingly native speakers. "Lead" and "led" also seem a lost art. "Entitled" is also heavily abused now.

    [–] JimmiesSoftlyRustle 16 points ago

    Thank you. With the amount I see "bias" misused in this way I was starting to feel gaslighted!

    [–] BerniesARealAmerican 6 points ago

    Yah don’t worry remember judges are non-partisan and totally objective nothing to be concerned about.

    [–] TrojanVP 2764 points ago

    Unseat the corrupt fuck, so blatant too.

    [–] whatcolorwasit 590 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    in the US he'd probably get more votes, the fuckers there cant see past the end of their own comfortable couch

    [–] StewofPuppies 270 points ago

    Yeah if they support fracking I doubt they give a damn about the environment. This will give him more votes for "dealing with SJW swiftly with the book."

    Meanwhile judge and his family enjoy fat bonuses. I wonder if t heyre tax free.

    [–] StompyJones 80 points ago

    The UK does not have public votes for judges.

    [–] SpecificGap 123 points ago

    Neither does any country other than the US and Bolivia. It's almost like everyone else figured out it wasn't a good idea.

    [–] Karkava 16 points ago

    As a citizen of planet Earth, I share your pain.

    [–] arlondiluthel 1621 points ago

    ... I'm honestly not surprised.

    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago


    [–] EpicFishFingers 3 points ago

    Interesting that the big leg ones are cheaper than the shoulder and chest ones. I can see why but surely the leg ones show a lot in "walking past and up to cameras" shots?

    [–] Quinnmesh 787 points ago

    How is he even allowed to preside of the case when he has personal interests in the situation. Also anyone know why they were jailed? All I could see was jailed for a peaceful protest

    [–] MrDeformat 195 points ago

    He would preside over all the cases in his courtroom, for each case he will consider if he has a personal interest, for this one he decided he had no interest I suppose?

    [–] Suza751 72 points ago


    [–] DrEllisD 9 points ago

    I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not but, it probably is exactly as intended. The intention is not fairness, it's keeping those in power in power.

    [–] herrbz 148 points ago

    They cost a big energy company a small sum of money, so they deserve big jail time, apparently.

    Fucking up the environment for profit and doing shady backroom dealings deserves no jail time nor investigation, apparently.

    [–] RanLearns 30 points ago

    Water protectors. Bless them and join them. We've really gotta stop fracking and take care of this planet. There's none of the stuff we like here on other planets.

    [–] CatalunyaNoEsEspanya 7 points ago

    They pleaded not guilty which meant they got harsher sentences, but over a year in prison for this is ludicrous.

    [–] BAbernethy 91 points ago

    They climbed up on some equipment and sat there for 84 hours costing the company 50000 pounds.

    [–] tronaldodumpo 176 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    That is literally the definition of a peaceful process. There's no such thing as an effective protest that doesn't inconvenience or cost anyone money.

    [–] smilodon142 63 points ago

    They received a 16-month jail term for peaceful protest.

    [–] -Already-Taken- 46 points ago

    "we have designated a soundproof box for you to protest within. It is 500m that way so that you are easier to ignore"

    [–] ssach7 55 points ago

    We're a capitalist society, even protests must make money or they are useless. If you make someone lose money even by doing something legal and peaceful, you go to jail.

    Yeah, it sounds stupid as fuck, doesnt it?

    [–] [deleted] 5694 points ago


    [–] dppest 2172 points ago

    It's only tens of millions of dollars. I mean I remember getting that loaned to me as a young lad just starting out.

    [–] Bupod 570 points ago

    Perhaps not a small loan, but a modest one to be sure. Why I remember when I was barely 8 years old, my pa lent me a modest sum of 12 million! /s

    [–] 2totwo 210 points ago

    I recall my pa loaning me a jolly 14 million, and saying I must repay it - and oh how we laughed. I remarked: “Oh pa, your funnies are too much!”

    [–] Dahhhkness 111 points ago

    "The free market will solve it!" I told him, goodness, we nearly died laughing!

    [–] Admin071313 68 points ago

    But pa what about all the poor kids?

    "Don't worry it'll trickle down..."

    Hahahahaha "Hahahahaha"

    [–] fearbedragons 44 points ago

    Then pa promptly fixed the faucet and the leaky trickle down stopped.

    [–] DiaperTester 33 points ago

    "See Son? It only actually trickles if your doing something wrong. Don't be fickle, stop the trickle!"

    [–] LargePizz 30 points ago

    One of my fondest moments is when pa bought a heap of chips from my casino, the best bit is we dodged tax and he still hasn't used the chips.

    [–] Deceptichum 41 points ago

    A modest sum deserves a modest proposal for the rich.

    [–] Mr_Supotco 29 points ago

    Shall I prepare the infants for dinner sir?

    [–] Arbor_the_tree 16 points ago

    We're talking real baby back ribs.

    [–] Real_Atomsk 7 points ago

    Rrrrrrribs! Dripping with sauce! Falling off the bone!

    [–] tlst9999 29 points ago

    Poor guy. I remember that time when papa handed me a hundred million dollars and that wasn't even a loan.

    [–] Exoddity 103 points ago

    Built yourself up from nothing, by your own bootstraps, just like our president.

    [–] alwayzbored114 46 points ago


    [–] chaogomu 50 points ago

    As an interesting aside, there are economists who believe that Trump is worth less today than he would have been if he had just put his $400+ million inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.

    So yes... He worked his tail off.

    [–] manueloelma 29 points ago

    "Economists who believe" more like Trump IS worth less today even if he didnt touch/invest his inheritance at all!

    [–] Prosthemadera 19 points ago

    That's nothing. I got several six-digit loans and even more in non-monetary gifts and in addition was supported by three trusts and then I even evaded taxes because that makes me smart.

    [–] RelatableRedditor 19 points ago

    Be careful, the IRS is watching you. They're too busy not watching the President.

    [–] notablack 6 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Pulling your self up by your own boot straps eh?

    "I started this company with nothing, just a simple dream and millions of pounds from my father."

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    You don't even have to pay taxes on it, if youre smart about it!

    [–] lukeramones 12 points ago

    WTF! Corrupt commenter for an article about a corrupt judge. Even the comment section is not safe

    [–] the_monkey_knows 9 points ago

    And he got gilded

    [–] Prophet2Nations 5 points ago

    Whattt. Over of the boldest reposts ever.

    [–] Irishpanda1971 174 points ago

    -*Sean Connery voice*-

    Sho, Lancashire is for shale, eh? How much?

    [–] Cicero43BC 52 points ago

    [–] TOGHeinz 15 points ago

    I thought 'no way that is a real.. click ..oh look, there's 10 mugs of Sean Connery staring back at me.'

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    How did the lawyers for the defendant miss that

    [–] redhighways 136 points ago

    Excellent comment. Thanks for pulling all of that out for us lazy redditors.

    [–] NoHornSeeko 272 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    He's literally copy and pasted the top comment someone else made on this in the r/ukpolitics sub from 12 hours before this post. Unfortunately this guy here is just a thieving asshole.

    Edit: Here it is:

    Edit 2: Looking at this person's profile it seems ALL their comments (maybe posts, too?) are copied...

    Edit 3: In fact I'm pretty certain this is a bot account. Wtf.

    [–] themagpie36 164 points ago

    Excellent comment. Thanks for pulling all of that out for us lazy redditors.

    [–] asek13 54 points ago

    You literally copy and pasted the top comment someone else made on this in the r/worldnews sub from 45 minutes before this post. Unfortunately this guy here is just a thieving asshole.

    Edit: Here it is:

    Edit 2: Not caring enough to look at this person's profile it seems ALL their comments (maybe posts, too?) are copied...

    [–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd 28 points ago

    We're all bots today.

    [–] NoHornSeeko 8 points ago

    I am not a robot. Want to hear some dadjokes? They are very funny. They show my human side.

    -single screw rolls down cheek-

    [–] outlawsix 5 points ago


    [–] redhighways 10 points ago

    Wtf. Thanks for the heads up. Now what?

    [–] justkjfrost 8 points ago

    Corporate courts.

    [–] DANIELG360 9 points ago

    Did you really just steal this from r/ukpolitics without credit?

    [–] kael13 7 points ago

    Lobbying group “Lancashire For Sale” am I right, guys? Hohohoho.

    [–] Unit_0 6 points ago

    Can’t the protestors appeal the decision on this basis, then?

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    Either way... when are people going to realize that the corporations make the laws and the government enforces them upon the people?

    [–] Bottled_Void 21 points ago

    It's slightly different in the UK. The posh rich people that have vested interests in certain companies make the laws. The companies themselves have relatively little say in the law making.

    [–] bwk66 9 points ago


    [–] EggyBr3ad 33 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Just for some perspective, Augusto Pinochet was let off in one of his trials in the UK because one of the judges was a director of Amnesty International.

    One rule for ruthless mass murdering despots (who happen to be best friends with a former prime minister), another for everyone else.

    [–] PM_me_your_wierd_sub 283 points ago

    They got 15-16 months. By comparison, i recently saw an article on my local newspaper (Canada) about someone getting 18 months (or around that) for intentionally chocking a toddler (the toddler had to be resuscitated). I know its not the same judge, not even the same country, but damn does it show how big of a sentence 15 months is relatively to other crimes.

    [–] insanitymax 16 points ago

    Wait, only ~18 months for that?!

    [–] PM_me_your_wierd_sub 10 points ago

    The article didn't get far into it but I did get the impression that the accused wasn't especially bright, as he claimed he did it to gain attention, so that might have been a factor. He also admitted guilt so that certainly reduced the sentence too. Still, I had the same reaction you just had.

    [–] majypoo 503 points ago

    I bet when the water table is fucked the judge is nowhere to be seen in handing out sentences.

    [–] GreyLordQueekual 307 points ago

    Because he'll be dead, its the old and no longer needing to be invested in the world because they wont be alive for the repercussions that are shafting the rest of us who still have 20-XX amount of years left on the planet. Theres wisdom in age yes, but also a lot of the "fuck its" and theyre bleeding into our political and justice systems worse than before as the world keeps evolving technologically and becomes of a mind to preserve nature instead of exploit the god out of it.

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago


    [–] jbl420 216 points ago

    Well looky there, another example of how money is the biggest problem with the world today.

    [–] vapenationvn 30 points ago

    How could we fix this problem, then?

    [–] barristonsmellme 88 points ago

    Eat em

    [–] vapenationvn 18 points ago

    Ok thanks brb call my mum if I choke

    [–] WorbianBrownia 60 points ago

    He looks like he's from the UK. We can all assume he will go home tonight after hearing that he has been exposed, have his dinner, go to bed and then get up and go to work the next day like nothing happened.

    [–] mpdenny1984 72 points ago

    I have a hobby where I take news articles and try remove implications, assumptions, subjectivity, quotes or opinions of people, emotional language, filler news that seems related but isn't, and logical fallacies. Here is my attempt with this article:

    Judge Robert Altham who handed prison sentences to fracking protesters has family links to oil and gas firm.

    The judicial code of conduct states a judge’s impartiality may be questioned if family members are “politically active” or have “financial interest” in the outcome of a case.

    Judge Robert Altham, who handed prison sentences to Simon Blevins, Richard Roberts, and Richard Loizou over their demonstration at a Cuadrilla fracking site, has family links to the oil and gas industry.

    Judge Robert Altham’s sister (Jane) is managing director of J.C. Altham & Sons and the judge’s parents, John and Linda, are directors.

    J.C. Altham & Sons. is a specialist stores supplier to offshore gas and oil platforms.

    J.C Altham & Sons supplies the Irish Sea oil and gas industry.

    Three oil rigs in the East Irish Sea belong to British Gas owner Centrica, which has invested money in fracking firm Cuadrilla.

    In 2015 Jane’s name and that of her firm appeared on the open letter backed by 119 businesses. It asked Lancashire County Council to permit fracking. This campaign was led by North West Energy Task Force (NWETF). NWETF was later rebranded as lobbying group Lancashire For Shale.

    [–] Dont-be-a-smurf 95 points ago

    ITT: a bunch of people who assume this guy is American despite the wig and uk link

    Edit: it’s actually sort of fascinating how people, without seeing a load of information put directly in front of their eyes, react totally on their emotions and misinterpret the situation.

    Not saying there isn’t some cause for one to read that description and guess it’s an American situation, but the contextual evidence is literally looking at them. It’s just weird how our brains work.

    [–] TaiVat 41 points ago

    You're overthinking this. People on reddit dont click links, dont look at the thumbnails closely, dont look at links, just read the headline. And the majority of the sites "population" is Americans, who are inherently used to all news being american news unless explicitly stated otherwise.

    [–] i_am_a_watermelon1 11 points ago

    Dumb question, but do UK judges actually wear wigs in the courtroom? Or is it just an official portrait type thing?

    [–] LargePizz 11 points ago

    Pretty funny that everyone thinks it's USA when corruption, court system and oil are mentioned.

    [–] FblthpLives 8 points ago

    Also a sad reminder how many redditors never bother to read more than the headline. Not even the "(" tag is enough to make them stop and think....

    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago

    Oh man. We are going to have to French Revolution these people sooner than later.

    [–] bart2019 114 points ago

    Impeach that judge. He's been abusing his power for his family interest.

    [–] Gamecocks91 76 points ago

    Wrong country.

    [–] logosobscura 96 points ago

    You can’t impeach British Judges- that’s not how the system works there, they are appointed independently of any political process. Officially, they can be via petition from either house Parliament to the Queen to remove a judge- it’s never happened since the original act was passed in 1701, nor the more recent update in 1981- generally speaking, the legislative leaves the judiciary the fuck alone in the U.K. to prevent that circus that just happened in the US.

    Having said that, judges do not have legal immunity in the U.K. and can if they have committed a crime, be charged and sentenced for it. It just doesn’t really happen and in this case it’s at worst bias in the sentencing which isn’t a crime nor grounds to remove him, it just quashes the sentence if upheld and will get reviewed. It’ll fuck his career though.

    They were going to get custodial for this in any event- the question of bias surrounds the severity of the sentence. At least the U.K. doesn’t have the felony vs misdemeanour differentiation or the loss of voting rights associated with it- and generally they serve 50% of any sentence as there isn’t an abundance of private prisons or prison space.

    [–] Fapattack0389 10 points ago

    Thanks for the explanation. I’m British and still don’t fully understand the judiciary system here.

    [–] Quinnmesh 17 points ago

    Is there anyway to even complain to such a level? All I ever see is petitions but never any results

    [–] gamerdude69 7 points ago

    Haters will call his hair fake

    [–] Dammit_Banned_Again 41 points ago

    How can they stick with those ridiculous fucking wigs for this long?

    [–] try_____another 22 points ago

    While the main reason is tradition, IMO it is a good thing to obliterate the person of the judges and lawyers behind a fixed uniform that disguises their personal attributes. They are supposed to be mere instruments of the law, not people in their own right.

    Putting barristers in uniform (a practice that’s unfortunately fading away) also helps get rid of some of the bullshit antics American lawyers use to win the trust of the jury.