Wow - A five year sentence

I can't remember when it was but sometime in the 90's (Blair or Major) there was a protest of about 50,000 people which became violent in terms of damage being caused. ( I can't remember the reason they were protesting) This was all over the BBC. I found out a few days later that over a million people marched through London at the same time in protest of the poor rate of the state pension. It was a peaceful protest.
To sum up. it pays to be violent because there is more publicity and will be shown on national tv. If you do not deface, destroy and just be polite, no one will list or even hear of you
 
Laughing said:
I ignored it but largely because it doesn't hold water in the context of the discussion.

As a nation you can't ask other countries to address carbon emissions when we don't. The amount of, respective, carbon produced is irrelevant both to attitudes and this discussion.
Click to expand...
The context of the discussion is why a bunch of middle class “ecowarriors” take the easy option of protesting and disrupting in this country, when if they were serious in their beliefs they’d be protesting in China or Russia

…. and please don’t try the “to try and get the UK to influence them” ballhooks because they’d just laugh in the UKs face
 
Malaguena said:
The context of the discussion is why a bunch of middle class “ecowarriors” take the easy option of protesting and disrupting in this country, when if they were serious in their beliefs they’d be protesting in China or Russia

…. and please don’t try the “to try and get the UK to influence them” ballhooks because they’d just laugh in the UKs face
Click to expand...
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout. Concentrate on the area where you might have some effect. Clearly you don't give a shît about your kids.
 
Muttley said:
So, if there is something that we don't agree with, we believe that the Government is wrong, is acting illegally or unfairly, we should just do what exactly?
Click to expand...

If a government is acting illegally, by all means protest. Peacefully. Without disrupting the day to day lives of thousands of people. If they are genuinely acting illegally, in a democracy, they will usually get called on it.

If there is something you simply don’t agree with? Campaign. Write letters. Drum up support. Whatever else. Or accept it. Maybe if it’s a serious issue, protest. Again, without disruption.

Here’s what I don’t understand though….

Why should “there’s something I don’t agree with” lead to disruptive protests? Why should “there’s something I don’t agree with” lead to anything?

Too many people are far too entitled in this country. They can’t see there might be 2 sides.
“I don’t agree with that” is not the same as “that’s wrong” and they just can’t tell the difference.

If everyone on both sides of every argument just protested, the country would be in a complete mess. If the protesters in any cause actually got what they want, they would be the first to complain if the other side then started protesting their point and affecting their lives.

Plenty of laws I don’t agree with. Doesn’t mean I’m right.
 
NYboro said:
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout. Concentrate on the area where you might have some effect. Clearly you don't give a shît about your kids.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha ha - a bunch of little rich kids thinking they can have any effect with this eco-warrior 5hit - they’re actually harming their “cause” with these antics.

There’s also absolutely no whataboutery - the real issue, as was pointed out, is the 5hit pumped out by the likes of China, Russia, India etc.which make our emissions pail into insignificance.

If Cressida and Lucia (and no doubt Araminta as well) really want to “have some effect” they can easily get to Russia or China and start doing the same sort of things - now, I wonder why they don’t - perhaps you could enlighten me 🤔

…. and again, please don’t try the naive “get the U.K. to influence them” carp.
 
MidlandsBoroFan said:
If a government is acting illegally, by all means protest. Peacefully. Without disrupting the day to day lives of thousands of people. If they are genuinely acting illegally, in a democracy, they will usually get called on it.

If there is something you simply don’t agree with? Campaign. Write letters. Drum up support. Whatever else. Or accept it. Maybe if it’s a serious issue, protest. Again, without disruption.

Here’s what I don’t understand though….

Why should “there’s something I don’t agree with” lead to disruptive protests? Why should “there’s something I don’t agree with” lead to anything?

Too many people are far too entitled in this country. They can’t see there might be 2 sides.
“I don’t agree with that” is not the same as “that’s wrong” and they just can’t tell the difference.

If everyone on both sides of every argument just protested, the country would be in a complete mess. If the protesters in any cause actually got what they want, they would be the first to complain if the other side then started protesting their point and affecting their lives.

Plenty of laws I don’t agree with. Doesn’t mean I’m right.
Click to expand...
Protest so that nobody notices?

Junior doctors strike, nurses strike, railway workers strike. All caused disruption to lives.

Do we, as a society, prosecute them for it?
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Protest so that nobody notices?

Junior doctors strike, nurses strike, railway workers strike. All caused disruption to lives.

Do we, as a society, prosecute them for it?
Click to expand...
No we don’t.

Because they do it legitimately.

Hope this helps.

Sorry if this doesn’t fit your argument
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Protest so that nobody notices?

Junior doctors strike, nurses strike, railway workers strike. All caused disruption to lives.

Do we, as a society, prosecute them for it?
Click to expand...

Far too many people strike far too often, while we’re on the subject…that’s a whole different conversation though.

The answer is no. We don’t prosecute. The examples you use are people just not going to work. Yes, lots of people are affected by that, but that’s just a by product.

People like just stop oil aren’t simply not going to work. They are deliberately thinking about ways they can cause massive disruption to as many people as possible.

Completely different.
 
Malaguena said:
The context of the discussion is why a bunch of middle class “ecowarriors” take the easy option of protesting and disrupting in this country, when if they were serious in their beliefs they’d be protesting in China or Russia

…. and please don’t try the “to try and get the UK to influence them” ballhooks because they’d just laugh in the UKs face
Click to expand...
Not sure a 5 stretch is the easy option but to your point. Are you suggesting that the uk has no influence on the world stage?

You may believe that but it doesn't make it so. And let's then assume you are right, you think we should do nothing because it won't make a difference? You want us to be passive observers whilst the world burns?

Ok. It's entirely your choice and your beliefs. I would hope that most people don't share that belief.
 
MidlandsBoroFan said:
Far too many people strike far too often, while we’re on the subject…that’s a whole different conversation though.

The answer is no. We don’t prosecute. The examples you use are people just not going to work. Yes, lots of people are affected by that, but that’s just a by product.

People like just stop oil aren’t simply not going to work. They are deliberately thinking about ways they can cause massive disruption to as many people as possible.

Completely different.
Click to expand...
This is the funniest post on the thread.

We would still be working a 6.5 day week with no entitlement to paid leave. We would be a much poorer country but for the unionisation of workers fighting to give you the rights you enjoy today.

Disruption is not a by product of strikes. It's the purpose.
 
Why the **** would a UK citizen go to China and protest against climate change?

I don`t see Chinese Climate activists coming here to do the same.

The UK has a problem with CO2 emissions half that of China (per capita).

We need to do more, we need people to shout louder and we need our Governments to act quicker.

£750000 in disruptions is going to pale into insignificance, when the time comes to act

You either believe action needs to be taken now, or your happy to sit on your **** and accept your future children/generation will be impacted, whilst your rotting in the ground or scattered to the winds.

Me if people can, protest the **** out of it, the future consequences are much more dire.
 
Laughing said:
This is the funniest post on the thread.

We would still be working a 6.5 day week with no entitlement to paid leave. We would be a much poorer country but for the unionisation of workers fighting to give you the rights you enjoy today.

Disruption is not a by product of strikes. It's the purpose.
Click to expand...

Think you’re misunderstanding me. Massively.

I have no problem with striking when it’s called for. I didn’t say that at all if you read my post. I agree with everything you said.

I just think some groups of strikers take it too far. They make demands over and above because they know the position of power they are in.

For example (an example I remember from a while back) you’ll get industries like train drivers where they just stick together, no matter what. A bad train driver who’s been constantly late to work for 10 years, driving dangerously - well you can’t sack him because it’s a job for life and his mates will strike.

Plenty of examples like that over the years. The legal profession going on strike because they aren’t paid enough? Please…

And just stop oil and similar groups are absolutely nothing to do with striking. That is just disruption.

I am NOT talking about the majority of traditional strikes, those which have given me my rights today. Again, I’ve never said that.
 
MidlandsBoroFan said:
Think you’re misunderstanding me. Massively.

I have no problem with striking when it’s called for. I didn’t say that at all if you read my post. I agree with everything you said.

I just think some groups of strikers take it too far. They make demands over and above because they know the position of power they are in.

For example (an example I remember from a while back) you’ll get industries like train drivers where they just stick together, no matter what. A bad train driver who’s been constantly late to work for 10 years, driving dangerously - well you can’t sack him because it’s a job for life and his mates will strike.

Plenty of examples like that over the years. The legal profession going on strike because they aren’t paid enough? Please…

And just stop oil and similar groups are absolutely nothing to do with striking. That is just disruption.

I am NOT talking about the majority of traditional strikes, those which have given me my rights today. Again, I’ve never said that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, point accepted. However you did say far too many people strike far too often. Not sure that's true.

On the subject of dumb strikes, and their are some. When I left school I worked at the bsc labs on lane. When the tea went from 2p to 5p everyone went on strike.

On the other hand strike action only really works if everyone supports the majority decision and, to be fair, they are much more democratic than our election process.
 
Laughing said:
Fair enough, point accepted. However you did say far too many people strike far too often. Not sure that's true.

On the subject of dumb strikes, and their are some. When I left school I worked at the bsc labs on lane. When the tea went from 2p to 5p everyone went on strike.

On the other hand strike action only really works if everyone supports the majority decision and, to be fair, they are much more democratic than our election process.
Click to expand...
Maybe far too many was the wrong choice of words.
 
Malaguena said:
Ha ha ha ha - a bunch of little rich kids thinking they can have any effect with this eco-warrior 5hit - they’re actually harming their “cause” with these antics.

There’s also absolutely no whataboutery - the real issue, as was pointed out, is the 5hit pumped out by the likes of China, Russia, India etc.which make our emissions pail into insignificance.

If Cressida and Lucia (and no doubt Araminta as well) really want to “have some effect” they can easily get to Russia or China and start doing the same sort of things - now, I wonder why they don’t - perhaps you could enlighten me 🤔

…. and again, please don’t try the naive “get the U.K. to influence them” carp.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that, living in Spain, climate change would be a consideration for you. Obviously not.
 
Laughing said:
I ignored it but largely because it doesn't hold water in the context of the discussion.

As a nation you can't ask other countries to address carbon emissions when we don't. The amount of, respective, carbon produced is irrelevant both to attitudes and this discussion.
Click to expand...
We've reduced ours 50% surely we can ask others to match the same reduction before we totally bankrupt ourselves, strip the last remaining industry and bills continue to go up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top