FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Peaceful protest
Peaceful protest
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? " No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago." I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the egg hard boiled? "I just think it's absolutely ridiculous because that is assault yet the guy was claiming it was a peaceful protest. Why target the king? he has been at the forefront of green issues for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the egg hard boiled?
I just think it's absolutely ridiculous because that is assault yet the guy was claiming it was a peaceful protest. Why target the king? he has been at the forefront of green issues for decades. "I was being flippant .. Tbh who knows what the guys issue is, as you say Charlie boy has been ahead of the curve for decades so it seems strange.. I would say whilst acknowledging that there are just causes the actions by some can frustrate and listening to the guy on R4 yesterday who missed his dad's funeral was awful and is the sort of thing that will reduce support.. The right to peacefully protest must remain and some of the legislation being pushed through at the moment by people like Braverman is a far bigger threat to society in general.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. " Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one" I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one" Just stop oil is pointless though because they want it stopped within 8 years however what will the alternative? Whenever these people are asked this they come up with technology that hasn't be involved yet. Just stop oil and then what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white." Since when did the colour of your skin become a climate change issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white." In fairness. People who don't think science exists, aren't their target audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one Just stop oil is pointless though because they want it stopped within 8 years however what will the alternative? Whenever these people are asked this they come up with technology that hasn't be involved yet. Just stop oil and then what?" I don't support this group, but their starting point is 8 years. No one there actually believes it. They probably think it's a starting point to negotiate from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white." one of the benefits of having security is it can allow you to look at the bigger picture. Play the ball, not the man. Do you think climate change isn't going to happen? Or is invetiable and unchangeable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one" Also it's not temporary it has been pretty much at least 3 times a week for nearly 7 months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white.one of the benefits of having security is it can allow you to look at the bigger picture. Play the ball, not the man. Do you think climate change isn't going to happen? Or is invetiable and unchangeable? " Not quite sure I understand that. Are you saying that people blocking the M25 today has now successfully changed the climate 100 years from now? That was easier than I expected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. " I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all pointless as the UK produces 1% of the Earth's CO2 emissions. " Only if you believe that the UK has only 1% influence on the World and how oil companies are financed, taxed and move money. The UK produces approximately double the global average per person of CO2 per year though. Some work to do, perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse." Well if this is going to happen within the next 10 to 15 years we're too late aren't we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive." I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse." Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? " I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? " The people involved in these protests mainly seem to be of two types. All of them on the face of it appear to be white. I find that odd, as it is statistically unlikely, particularly around London. There is an older sub group which contains an inordinate number of retired vicars and other public sector workers. Well meaning but probably little experience of reality. The younger crowd are overwhelmingly privately educated. Again they probably have little real world experience outside of mollycoddled family homes and rarefied educational establishments. They probably have zero understanding of economics. They often seem to be emotionally unstable. This is probably immaturity but may also be partly performative. They see these protests as a step on the way to some shallow fame. It may also be a sort of mental illness brought on by educational and closed group brainwashing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise. "It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Police are dammed either way. Go in to hard people moan go in to soft people moan. Personally if some one wants to attach themselves to an overhead gantry. Just leave them there they will soon get down when their Waitrose sandwiches have run out and the phone's are dead. People are making out this is a new thing. Doesn't anyone remember swampy? Or the greenham common protests." I don't remember swampy or the greenham common protests putting people's lives at risk just for trying to go about their normal lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse." I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white.one of the benefits of having security is it can allow you to look at the bigger picture. Play the ball, not the man. Do you think climate change isn't going to happen? Or is invetiable and unchangeable? Not quite sure I understand that. Are you saying that people blocking the M25 today has now successfully changed the climate 100 years from now? That was easier than I expected. " inmay have misunderstood. Were you saying that the traffic jams would have no effect in 100 years Or that their protests would have no effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was the egg hard boiled?
I just think it's absolutely ridiculous because that is assault yet the guy was claiming it was a peaceful protest. Why target the king? he has been at the forefront of green issues for decades. "Had he aimed better and actually hit the King with the egg, that would be classed as assualt - and I'm fairly sure that assaulting the monarch constitutes high treason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white.one of the benefits of having security is it can allow you to look at the bigger picture. Play the ball, not the man. Do you think climate change isn't going to happen? Or is invetiable and unchangeable? Not quite sure I understand that. Are you saying that people blocking the M25 today has now successfully changed the climate 100 years from now? That was easier than I expected. inmay have misunderstood. Were you saying that the traffic jams would have no effect in 100 years Or that their protests would have no effect. " Well neither is going to make any difference, aside from disrupting others' lives today. It's not clear what they think their actions are going to achieve. Are they seriously expecting the government to turn around this afternoon and "Just Stop Oil"? Even if they got their way and stopped new drilling for oil in the UK, that doesn't "Stop Oil". It just means that more oil has to be purchased from other places who care less about some rich kids mouthing off about stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this. "I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? " May explain why the police are so soft on them. Probably all know each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Peaceful protests is not hindering other people's ability to go about their daily lives. Neither is committing criminal damage or assault. Frankly its about time some of these 'peaceful protestors' got their comeuppance." And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be?" Dragging out of the way and a clip round the ear holes. The same sort of treatment anybody deserves for blocking another person from going about their business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be? Dragging out of the way and a clip round the ear holes. The same sort of treatment anybody deserves for blocking another person from going about their business." So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Why target the king? he has been at the forefront of green issues for decades. " ................. Sadly it's guaranteed to make headline news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know..." As said, peaceful protest is not hindering someone from going about their business. All these so-called peaceful protestors are doing is forcing their will on other people regardless of how it affects the people. They are no better than the politicians that take us all for fools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know... As said, peaceful protest is not hindering someone from going about their business. All these so-called peaceful protestors are doing is forcing their will on other people regardless of how it affects the people. They are no better than the politicians that take us all for fools." I don't think you know what peaceful protest is. It's protest that is... um... peaceful. That said, I don't think the protestors are helping their cause by pissing off the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be? Dragging out of the way and a clip round the ear holes. The same sort of treatment anybody deserves for blocking another person from going about their business. So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know..." Probably an equally effective (or otherwise) way of getting a message across, though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion." You Haven't seen that a police officer has been Injured as a direct result of these people's actions or the 2 lorries crashed on the M25 today simply because of this protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? " A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own. "These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be? Dragging out of the way and a clip round the ear holes. The same sort of treatment anybody deserves for blocking another person from going about their business. So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know..." Absolutely there is an injunction stopping and protesting on the M25 they are breaking the law that is not the peaceful protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And what would comeuppance for peaceful protest be? Dragging out of the way and a clip round the ear holes. The same sort of treatment anybody deserves for blocking another person from going about their business. So physical violence is the right response to peaceful protest? Good to know... Probably an equally effective (or otherwise) way of getting a message across, though! " Exactly. People cannot just block roads whenever they feel like it because they feel it's just cause. The people like it or not somebody has been injured today and it won't be long before someone is killed. Its all well and good saying well they have a right to protest, it will be interesting to see how many of you would say the same if it was a loved one of yours injured or killed as a direct result of their behaviour because this isn't beyond the realms of possibility and I believe it is actually in inevitability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. " Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before!" This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before!" No it's not however I'd like to think that lessons have been learned from past mistakes but who knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad." Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! No it's not however I'd like to think that lessons have been learned from past mistakes but who knows. " I think the main lesson from history might be that we rarely learn lessons from history. Alas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own.
These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible. "How do you know it isn't. Do you have all the data to make that call. Or are you relying on what the government and the media are telling you..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. " I'm just agreeing with the poster that, just because Person A seems to be doing something, it could always actually be Person B pretending that Person A is doing it. I mean I think it might be crazy tin foil hat talk, but it could be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own.
These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible.
How do you know it isn't. Do you have all the data to make that call. Or are you relying on what the government and the media are telling you..?"It are asking that we stop oil within the next 8 years and that we can story wind And solar panel however the battery capacity is not available so yes a little bit of research tells me what they are asking for is not possible right now. Also I've never understood this argument about so I listened to what the government or media tell me id much rather do that than some tinfoil hat wearer on YouTube. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. I'm just agreeing with the poster that, just because Person A seems to be doing something, it could always actually be Person B pretending that Person A is doing it. I mean I think it might be crazy tin foil hat talk, but it could be the case. " That’s not how Agent Provocateurs operate. They are Person B. They are deep undercover and have been for months or even years. Their role is to commit acts or encourage Person A to commit acts that either furthers the aims of Person B’s bosses and/or simply undermines the validity and support of the organisation Person A is part of. It is NOT a thing of the past. It is very much a current tactic employed to great effect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. I'm just agreeing with the poster that, just because Person A seems to be doing something, it could always actually be Person B pretending that Person A is doing it. I mean I think it might be crazy tin foil hat talk, but it could be the case. That’s not how Agent Provocateurs operate. They are Person B. They are deep undercover and have been for months or even years. Their role is to commit acts or encourage Person A to commit acts that either furthers the aims of Person B’s bosses and/or simply undermines the validity and support of the organisation Person A is part of. It is NOT a thing of the past. It is very much a current tactic employed to great effect" But it sounds a bit like you are looking for a way to apologise for the behaviour of these people, who are basically terrorists. Many of them seem to be emotionally unstable. I think there is a serious risk that their behaviour escalates into violence when they don't get their way. Not all of them, but there is bound to be a fringe that starts seeing the sacrifice of a few humans as necessary to their cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. I'm just agreeing with the poster that, just because Person A seems to be doing something, it could always actually be Person B pretending that Person A is doing it. I mean I think it might be crazy tin foil hat talk, but it could be the case. That’s not how Agent Provocateurs operate. They are Person B. They are deep undercover and have been for months or even years. Their role is to commit acts or encourage Person A to commit acts that either furthers the aims of Person B’s bosses and/or simply undermines the validity and support of the organisation Person A is part of. It is NOT a thing of the past. It is very much a current tactic employed to great effect But it sounds a bit like you are looking for a way to apologise for the behaviour of these people, who are basically terrorists. Many of them seem to be emotionally unstable. I think there is a serious risk that their behaviour escalates into violence when they don't get their way. Not all of them, but there is bound to be a fringe that starts seeing the sacrifice of a few humans as necessary to their cause." "basically terrorists." Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion." I also don't think they set out to intentionally cause harm to others but they must be aware that their actions increase the risk to others. They seem to accept the increased danger to others which I don't think advances their cause | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion. You Haven't seen that a police officer has been Injured as a direct result of these people's actions or the 2 lorries crashed on the M25 today simply because of this protest. " Do you really believe that this was intentional? If not then it was not malicious, it was stupid and reckless. Not sure why that is difficult to acknowledge without making any excuses for the protesters. Otherwise we follow the normal, well trodden route to demonisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white. Since when did the colour of your skin become a climate change issue?" Effective protest has to disrupt the people and those in power itherwise, sadly nothing drastic changes. The Suffragette movement, black civil rights in the USA, anti apartheid protests in South Africa, even Union protests fighting for working conditions all needed to make a stand to make a difference. Like it all or, climate change is a serious issue that will cause ecological and economic issues that will cause much bigger disruptions to life in the future | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Two words... Agent Provocateur (Not the underwear, stop giggling at the back). Not saying there are but it is highly plausible. The Police placed long term “sleepers” into the Mining Unions as Agent Provocateurs. They did it with football hooligans. They did it with CND. Why wouldn’t they do it with climate protestors? A former police chief the other day a pretty much confirmed there were undercover officers. Indeed. So it isn’t beyond the realms of the imagination that these undercover operatives are acting as Agent Provocateurs and committing/encouraging actions that will undermine the cause of the protestors and lose public sympathy. Been done before! This could be happening in Ukraine too, to make Russia look bad. Don't think anybody's blocking the M25 in Russia or Ukraine. I'm just agreeing with the poster that, just because Person A seems to be doing something, it could always actually be Person B pretending that Person A is doing it. I mean I think it might be crazy tin foil hat talk, but it could be the case. That’s not how Agent Provocateurs operate. They are Person B. They are deep undercover and have been for months or even years. Their role is to commit acts or encourage Person A to commit acts that either furthers the aims of Person B’s bosses and/or simply undermines the validity and support of the organisation Person A is part of. It is NOT a thing of the past. It is very much a current tactic employed to great effect But it sounds a bit like you are looking for a way to apologise for the behaviour of these people, who are basically terrorists. Many of them seem to be emotionally unstable. I think there is a serious risk that their behaviour escalates into violence when they don't get their way. Not all of them, but there is bound to be a fringe that starts seeing the sacrifice of a few humans as necessary to their cause." I don’t remotely understand how you could come to that conclusion from what I have said? I have not excused any behaviour. But I am saying that there are many historical precedents where the powers that be have used Agent Provocateurs to further their own aims. For example, a government that wants to reduce the right to protest and effectiveness of protests may put forward a Bill that contains clauses that may play to the extremists in their party but causes the moderates to baulk at the potential to overstep executive power to the detriment of the public. However, if you can place Agent Provocateurs within protesting groups to encourage them to commit more extreme and disruptive acts, them eventually the more moderate elements in the public, and their party, will start shouting enough is enough we need the police to have more powers, we need that Bill! Before anyone starts talking about tinfoil and conspiracy theories...that is exactly what the Thatcher govt did with the Miners strike. They placed Agent Provocateurs within the unions and striking miners to stir things up and make them turn ugly and violent. This provides Thatcher the excuse and support to bring in more draconian anti strike legislation and break the power of the unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own.
These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible.
How do you know it isn't. Do you have all the data to make that call. Or are you relying on what the government and the media are telling you..?
It are asking that we stop oil within the next 8 years and that we can story wind And solar panel however the battery capacity is not available so yes a little bit of research tells me what they are asking for is not possible right now. Also I've never understood this argument about so I listened to what the government or media tell me id much rather do that than some tinfoil hat wearer on YouTube. "Ouch here comes the stereo type tropes. But what are Just stop oils demands. Can you clarify them for me..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own.
These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible.
How do you know it isn't. Do you have all the data to make that call. Or are you relying on what the government and the media are telling you..?
It are asking that we stop oil within the next 8 years and that we can story wind And solar panel however the battery capacity is not available so yes a little bit of research tells me what they are asking for is not possible right now. Also I've never understood this argument about so I listened to what the government or media tell me id much rather do that than some tinfoil hat wearer on YouTube.
Ouch here comes the stereo type tropes. But what are Just stop oils demands. Can you clarify them for me..?"Have you just had the cheek to say I am stereotyping after you have just done exactly the same thing and I was simply replying to you? No if you'd like to know them look them up yourself. How about you answer the question who should we listen to if not the government and the media? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion. You Haven't seen that a police officer has been Injured as a direct result of these people's actions or the 2 lorries crashed on the M25 today simply because of this protest. Do you really believe that this was intentional? If not then it was not malicious, it was stupid and reckless. Not sure why that is difficult to acknowledge without making any excuses for the protesters. Otherwise we follow the normal, well trodden route to demonisation." Did I say it was malicious or are you putting words in my mouth again? The just stop oil protesters have been on the record saying in the past when they have been accused of putting lives at risk that they will be very sorry if anyone loses their life as a direct result of their actions however more lives will be lost if they don't do what they are doing. They are very aware there is a possibility for innocent people to lose their lives as a result of their actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't want oil stopped. Only wars and population growth. Why don't they address the real problems?" Brirth rates around the world are down the problem is people are living longer and we can't really solve that one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't want oil stopped. Only wars and population growth. Why don't they address the real problems?" Climate change fuels wars. Why wouldn't you want oil use reduced to nothing over time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Give it another 10 to 15 years. When most of the tropical world becomes uninhabitable. When the people coming over in boats will make whats happening now look like a drop in the ocean. The people now moaning about these protesters, will be doing the exact same, or worse. Have you been directly impacted by these protests? Has it stopped to you going to a hospital appointment you waited 6 months for cancelled at the last minute because your consultant was stuck in the traffic? I didn't know that it was a thread, restricted to people directly affected by the protests to comment on, I apologise.
It wasn't until you said people should stop moaning but unless you have been directly affected you really don't get to say why others are upset about this. I'm assuming by your reply you haven't been and I guess if you had been you wouldn't be defending this.
I never said that they should stop moaning. Just that they will always moan about something, whether it directly effects them or not, without any solutions of their of their own.
These people have got any solutions either. What they are asking for isn't feasibly possible.
How do you know it isn't. Do you have all the data to make that call. Or are you relying on what the government and the media are telling you..?
It are asking that we stop oil within the next 8 years and that we can story wind And solar panel however the battery capacity is not available so yes a little bit of research tells me what they are asking for is not possible right now. Also I've never understood this argument about so I listened to what the government or media tell me id much rather do that than some tinfoil hat wearer on YouTube.
Ouch here comes the stereo type tropes. But what are Just stop oils demands. Can you clarify them for me..?
Have you just had the cheek to say I am stereotyping after you have just done exactly the same thing and I was simply replying to you? No if you'd like to know them look them up yourself. How about you answer the question who should we listen to if not the government and the media? "I asked about you getting your information from the government and the media because it your stance that what they are asking for isn't feasible was a non explanationary reply that typically comes to from the establishment. But these people have many other interests we aren't aware off. I loked up what their demands are. Their main seems to be demand be, stop funding and licencing new oil, gas exploration. Wean ourselves off fossil fuel, while investing more in renewable energy and home insulations. I don't think they are saying stop all fossil fuels, like right now. I stand to be corrected. Now I don't know if that is feasible or not. I don't think most members of the public do or even most politicians. You would have to have a lot of data and expertise to make that call. About getting your information from the government and media. Has Blair, Iraq and WMD taught people nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Why wouldn't you want oil use reduced to nothing over time?" It will never be reduced to 'nothing'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Why wouldn't you want oil use reduced to nothing over time?" It will never be reduced to 'nothing'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Why wouldn't you want oil use reduced to nothing over time? It will never be reduced to 'nothing'." It's a finite resource. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think you know what peaceful protest is. It's protest that is... um... peaceful." Peaceful would include not hindering other people or oppressing their ability to go about their daily lives. When protestors start hindering and obstructing other people from going about their business then that is no longer protest, its oppression and manipulation. Oppressing the rights of other people is still oppressing them, regardless of whether you do it violently or not. How's that saying go again? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think you know what peaceful protest is. It's protest that is... um... peaceful. Peaceful would include not hindering other people or oppressing their ability to go about their daily lives. When protestors start hindering and obstructing other people from going about their business then that is no longer protest, its oppression and manipulation. Oppressing the rights of other people is still oppressing them, regardless of whether you do it violently or not. How's that saying go again? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would have some sort of sympathy if they were blockading oil depots or protesting outside Parliament disrupting things there. I suppose they thought causing issues for the general public would mean people would put pressure on the government to do something but that isn't happening. All that's happening is people are losing all sympathy. I think that this is the right point to be making. I can understand an occasional, short, protest that causes a level of disruption to the general population that generates big publicity and some sympathy. Combined with longer term protests at oil refineries or oil company offices would be quite a good message. Not sure why they are not getting the feedback that what they are actually doing is probably counterproductive. I think there are some genuine protesters in this group but I also think there are people that just want to cause civil disobedience and will find any excuse. I'm not sure that I see anything to suggest that anybody because they "just want to cause civil disobedience", however wrongheaded their actions may be. Isn't that a bit of a projection? I also haven't seen any verifiable information to suggest that these protest have endangered people, although any serious traffic disruption will have serious, unintended, consequences. I assume that you aren't suggesting that they intentionally want to cause harm to life, are you? Foolish, not malicious would be my opinion. You Haven't seen that a police officer has been Injured as a direct result of these people's actions or the 2 lorries crashed on the M25 today simply because of this protest. Do you really believe that this was intentional? If not then it was not malicious, it was stupid and reckless. Not sure why that is difficult to acknowledge without making any excuses for the protesters. Otherwise we follow the normal, well trodden route to demonisation. Did I say it was malicious or are you putting words in my mouth again? The just stop oil protesters have been on the record saying in the past when they have been accused of putting lives at risk that they will be very sorry if anyone loses their life as a direct result of their actions however more lives will be lost if they don't do what they are doing. They are very aware there is a possibility for innocent people to lose their lives as a result of their actions. " I haven't put any "words in your mouth". I'm just challenging you to acknowledge that they aren't acting maliciously or intending to do deliberate harm. You haven't. Is it difficult to accept that is the situation or do you believe that they want to? It's not a trick, it's just taking a different view which may allow you to take a calmer view of a difficult situation. One which I don't support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest" Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What did you lot think of: The Chartists? The Suffragettes? Campaigners against Apartheid? Etc etc. Without protest and the threat of violence or damage we would not have ever won the vote, and many other things. " but those were civila rights and against the goverments not everyday people going about daily lives to feed and clothe families. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored?" "Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored?" I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad." Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? " Hmmm so Buck 99% of the scientists on the planet and 000s of research projects over the past 30 years all agree and prove climate change. The few research studies and scientists that disagree turn out to be funded by the fossil fuel industry. Governments actually ignored this for decades until being shamed into taking action which, we can see as a result of very deep pocketed lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, has been tepid at best. The main problem I see is that Govt (and major corporations) tend to be run by people in the later years of their lives. It is hard for many of them to care about the outcome of something beyond their lifespan, and as we know, politicians tend to all be very short term in their thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? Hmmm so Buck 99% of the scientists on the planet and 000s of research projects over the past 30 years all agree and prove climate change. The few research studies and scientists that disagree turn out to be funded by the fossil fuel industry. Governments actually ignored this for decades until being shamed into taking action which, we can see as a result of very deep pocketed lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, has been tepid at best. The main problem I see is that Govt (and major corporations) tend to be run by people in the later years of their lives. It is hard for many of them to care about the outcome of something beyond their lifespan, and as we know, politicians tend to all be very short term in their thinking." So more apologising for Just Stop Oil's actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? " My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do." Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. " I'm neither angry not confused. But it is fascinating that you equate criticism of Just Stop Oil with "climate change denial". I'm afraid it is indicative of how far down the extremist rabbit hole you have gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. " Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. I'm neither angry not confused. But it is fascinating that you equate criticism of Just Stop Oil with "climate change denial". I'm afraid it is indicative of how far down the extremist rabbit hole you have gone." No, your straight up climate change denial did that. Maybe try to lessen the personal insults? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here." Ah good, another deluded out of touch Leftie fanboy here to spout brainwashed groupthink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here." I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. I'm neither angry not confused. But it is fascinating that you equate criticism of Just Stop Oil with "climate change denial". I'm afraid it is indicative of how far down the extremist rabbit hole you have gone. No, your straight up climate change denial did that. Maybe try to lessen the personal insults?" I am very sympathetic. The education system has a lot to answer for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial." The thread is actually about the right to protest and what limits there should be to it. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about any subject other than the "climate crisis" when you have become so radicalised. I am sure there are therapy groups you can attend before you find yourself blocking the Dartford Tunnel or worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial."  At least there seems to be more people in society of good conscience, common sense and empathy. There will always be foot stampers but they are easily sidelined  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial. At least there seems to be more people in society of good conscience, common sense and empathy. There will always be foot stampers but they are easily sidelined ""Sheep", I think you mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial. The thread is actually about the right to protest and what limits there should be to it. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about any subject other than the "climate crisis" when you have become so radicalised. I am sure there are therapy groups you can attend before you find yourself blocking the Dartford Tunnel or worse." Is this thread about throwing personal insults at people who understand climate change? Maybe lessen the personal insults and try to address the posts instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial. The thread is actually about the right to protest and what limits there should be to it. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about any subject other than the "climate crisis" when you have become so radicalised. I am sure there are therapy groups you can attend before you find yourself blocking the Dartford Tunnel or worse. Is this thread about throwing personal insults at people who understand climate change? Maybe lessen the personal insults and try to address the posts instead." My initial post expressed concern for the participants in the Just Stop Oil cult and what might be motivating them, and concern that another poster was apologising for their behaviour, which is, in effect, terrorism. Your response was to accuse me of being a "climate change denier" even though nothing in my post expressed that view. I suggest it is you who should stop the personal attacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? My goodness you have started early monitoring my posts today. Maybe get down the job centre and find something useful to do. Do you know what a forum is on a website, and how it works? People post things, and others reply. You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. Don’t ‘feed the troll’. Whenever BuckNakid posts on threads it’s always some out of touch drivel that sounds like he learnt it in the 1950s. The answer is to just not reply to him. He feeds on the argument. As the old saying goes, ‘there’s none so blind as them that won’t see’. He can’t be proven wrong because being contrary is his sole reason for being here. I don't think he's a troll. I think he is genuinely confused and angry about climate change. There's a lot of interesting studies about the psychology of climate change denial. The thread is actually about the right to protest and what limits there should be to it. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about any subject other than the "climate crisis" when you have become so radicalised. I am sure there are therapy groups you can attend before you find yourself blocking the Dartford Tunnel or worse. Is this thread about throwing personal insults at people who understand climate change? Maybe lessen the personal insults and try to address the posts instead." He has lost the debate by a country mile but is too clueless to understand. There is literally no point in replying to him any further. But fair play, top kudos to you for preserving as long as you have | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad. Or you could take an hour or two to learn about climate science? Hmmm so Buck 99% of the scientists on the planet and 000s of research projects over the past 30 years all agree and prove climate change. The few research studies and scientists that disagree turn out to be funded by the fossil fuel industry. Governments actually ignored this for decades until being shamed into taking action which, we can see as a result of very deep pocketed lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, has been tepid at best. The main problem I see is that Govt (and major corporations) tend to be run by people in the later years of their lives. It is hard for many of them to care about the outcome of something beyond their lifespan, and as we know, politicians tend to all be very short term in their thinking. So more apologising for Just Stop Oil's actions." Buck you are becoming a broken record and continue to see what isn’t there! Show me where I have apologised for their actions. You do realise it is possible to agree with someone’s motives without agreeing with their actions or how they conduct themselves right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. " This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best." This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. I am not saying I know more than anyone else who has chosen to learn about it. But sure, you can be on the side of the confused guy who just throws personal insults at people. Crack on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. I am not saying I know more than anyone else who has chosen to learn about it. But sure, you can be on the side of the confused guy who just throws personal insults at people. Crack on. "The problem that you have is that your opinions are very simplistic and binary. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a "climate change denier" and that somehow you have a unique understanding of the issues. I dread to suggest it, as you probably already have my posts indexed as you appear to be so concerned about what I say, but nowhere will you find anywhere in anything I have said any "climate change denial". The climate is changing and always has. To argue otherwise would be insane. But again, that is not what this thread is about. I suggest that you start your own thread where you can explain climate change to anyone who would like to listen. We all have something to contribute in our own way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation." "This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best." "This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree." Really? Remind us again on the mechanism by which CO2 causes heating in the atmosphere. Just an overview in 2 or 3 sentences should prove that you know what you're talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. I am not saying I know more than anyone else who has chosen to learn about it. But sure, you can be on the side of the confused guy who just throws personal insults at people. Crack on.
The problem that you have is that your opinions are very simplistic and binary. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a "climate change denier" and that somehow you have a unique understanding of the issues.
I dread to suggest it, as you probably already have my posts indexed as you appear to be so concerned about what I say, but nowhere will you find anywhere in anything I have said any "climate change denial".
The climate is changing and always has. To argue otherwise would be insane.
But again, that is not what this thread is about. I suggest that you start your own thread where you can explain climate change to anyone who would like to listen. We all have something to contribute in our own way."I see what you did there Buck! 1. You have accused me of excusing the extreme behaviour of Stop Oil when I simply haven’t (I provided a highly plausible scenario involving Agent Provocateurs) yet you get antsy when someone makes a connection across your posts! Hmmmm seems a bit hypocritical to me? 2. You just said, “The climate is changing and always has.” You do of course realise that THAT is the basis of all climate changer denier arguments right? The issue is whether humans have influenced, accelerated or exacerbated the situation. So based on you making that specific statement, I think it is easy to draw the conclusion you are indeed a (human influenced) climate change denier! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. I am not saying I know more than anyone else who has chosen to learn about it. But sure, you can be on the side of the confused guy who just throws personal insults at people. Crack on.
The problem that you have is that your opinions are very simplistic and binary. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a "climate change denier" and that somehow you have a unique understanding of the issues.
I dread to suggest it, as you probably already have my posts indexed as you appear to be so concerned about what I say, but nowhere will you find anywhere in anything I have said any "climate change denial".
The climate is changing and always has. To argue otherwise would be insane.
But again, that is not what this thread is about. I suggest that you start your own thread where you can explain climate change to anyone who would like to listen. We all have something to contribute in our own way."Almost managed a post with no insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Ah good, another deluded out of touch Leftie fanboy here to spout brainwashed groupthink." Ironically, in this country, there is probably more 'groupthink' emanating from the right. Some of it pretty catastrophic (Think Brexit, Boris worship..for starters) Left wing individuals I talk with tend to think fairly independently from group influences. Again, I am referring to the left in this democracy, not those in totalitarian states. (Lest anyone think that I am in any way aligned, I like to be, as the Daily Telegraph used to describe itself, "Independent of all groups") | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. Really? Remind us again on the mechanism by which CO2 causes heating in the atmosphere. Just an overview in 2 or 3 sentences should prove that you know what you're talking about." This is the most ridiculous question. But let's play. CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're free to throw personal insults and get angry at people who have chosen to take a moment to understand climate science. And I am free to suggest it would help you to learn about the subjecct. Maybe your wouldn't be so angry and confused at people who do understand the situation. This is a very unusual stance to take for a man that has consistently proved that he doesn't understand the science himself. I'm all for encouraging people to learn, but suggesting that climate science is easy to understand, and that you are one of those that does understand it, is disingenuous at best. This is 100% false. Climate science is not too complicated for people to understand. I've chosen to learn about it and have studied it as part of a science degree. I am not saying I know more than anyone else who has chosen to learn about it. But sure, you can be on the side of the confused guy who just throws personal insults at people. Crack on.
The problem that you have is that your opinions are very simplistic and binary. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a "climate change denier" and that somehow you have a unique understanding of the issues.
I dread to suggest it, as you probably already have my posts indexed as you appear to be so concerned about what I say, but nowhere will you find anywhere in anything I have said any "climate change denial".
The climate is changing and always has. To argue otherwise would be insane.
But again, that is not what this thread is about. I suggest that you start your own thread where you can explain climate change to anyone who would like to listen. We all have something to contribute in our own way.""I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries." - Buck Combined with your other comments and angry/insulting responses to those who do understand climate change. It's fairly strong climate change denial. Should you choose to reply, try to address the comments and avoid personal insults. Cheers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple." That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple. That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding." That's part of it too. CO2 does absorb energy from the light frequencies. Still good work trying to make some kind of weird point about light frequency to "win", so I should have specified this for you to have been satisfied, but then you would have cracked on with some other lack of detail until we get to full papers written on it. Well done siding with confused climate change denying personal insults guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple." "That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding." "That's part of it too. CO2 does absorb energy from the light frequencies." It doesn't, CO2 is transparent to visible light. If CO2 did absorb light waves, this whole issue would be sorted, as we could just look up and see the dark patches in the sky where the CO2 was absorbing the light. "Well done siding with confused climate change denying personal insults guy. " The fact that you think that any disagreement with you is "siding with confused climate change denying personal insults guy", shows that you are being defensive instead of engaging with the discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple. That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding. That's part of it too. CO2 does absorb energy from the light frequencies. It doesn't, CO2 is transparent to visible light. If CO2 did absorb light waves, this whole issue would be sorted, as we could just look up and see the dark patches in the sky where the CO2 was absorbing the light. Well done siding with confused climate change denying personal insults guy. The fact that you think that any disagreement with you is "siding with confused climate change denying personal insults guy", shows that you are being defensive instead of engaging with the discussion." I didn't say "visible light" you made that bit up to "win". Good work. Your only purpose here is to try to win semantic arguments. So not sure why you're accusing me of not engaging in discussion. If you were concerned with that, why don't you pull up climate change denying personal insults guy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple." "That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding." "That's part of it too. CO2 does absorb energy from the light frequencies." "It doesn't, CO2 is transparent to visible light. If CO2 did absorb light waves, this whole issue would be sorted, as we could just look up and see the dark patches in the sky where the CO2 was absorbing the light." "I didn't say "visible light" you made that bit up to "win". Good work." But you did say "CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy", specifically differentiating between light and heat. If you didn't mean 'visible light' what exactly did you mean? "Your only purpose here is to try to win semantic arguments." In this thread, my purpose is to try to persuade you to stop claiming that climate science is simple, when you don't understand the basic principles yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy. It's very simple. That would be simple, but it isn't what happens. CO2 is transparent to light, so it really doesn't absorb any light energy. The light from the sun passes straight through it with no effect at all, going on to get absorbed by the earth. That absorbtion heats up the earth, and the increased temperature causes the earth to radiate away that heat as 'heat energy', or 'infra-red radiation' as us scientists like to call it. CO2 is not transparent to infra-red, so it absorbs some of that energy, and re-radiates it in all directions, some of that energy heads back down to earth, and causes a little bit of warming. I'm simplifying tremendously here, but the basic fact is that your explanation was wrong. You really should stop telling other people that is simple to understand if you don't have a grasp of the basics. If anyone else wants to read up on it, the key phrase to search for is "radiative forcing". Beware: most internet primers are full of simplifications that can cause problems with your further understanding. That's part of it too. CO2 does absorb energy from the light frequencies. It doesn't, CO2 is transparent to visible light. If CO2 did absorb light waves, this whole issue would be sorted, as we could just look up and see the dark patches in the sky where the CO2 was absorbing the light. I didn't say "visible light" you made that bit up to "win". Good work. But you did say "CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy", specifically differentiating between light and heat. If you didn't mean 'visible light' what exactly did you mean? Your only purpose here is to try to win semantic arguments. In this thread, my purpose is to try to persuade you to stop claiming that climate science is simple, when you don't understand the basic principles yourself." Yes quite right, I should have specified "long wavelength light energy". Good internet win. Well done. Climate science is not complex. The mechanisms behind is are simple and easy to understand. The much more difficult discipline is in climate modelling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say "visible light" you made that bit up to "win". Good work." "But you did say "CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy", specifically differentiating between light and heat. If you didn't mean 'visible light' what exactly did you mean?" "Yes quite right, I should have specified "long wavelength light energy"." Long wavelength light energy is the 'heat energy' that you referred to in your original statement. What did you mean by 'light energy' in that original statement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all starting to sound a bit nerdy wank to me Surely we should be discussing radiation wavelengths rather than light energy!" Wouldn't details of specific wavelengths make it even more nerdy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say "visible light" you made that bit up to "win". Good work. But you did say "CO2 absorbs light energy and radiates it as heat energy", specifically differentiating between light and heat. If you didn't mean 'visible light' what exactly did you mean? Yes quite right, I should have specified "long wavelength light energy". Long wavelength light energy is the 'heat energy' that you referred to in your original statement. What did you mean by 'light energy' in that original statement?" I meant "Light energy" when I said "light energy". But as you rightly pointed out, it's more correct to say "long wavelength light energy". In fairness, you did say "Just an overview". If you wanted more specificity, you should have said. In any case, you've won. Well done. In other news, climate change is real, angry confused climate change denier is throwing out personal insults, and people are protesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles." Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about." Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about." They are not going to bite the hand of the house that is going to feed them in a few years most mp's have a protesting past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source?" We were giving a rhetorical example of a scenario that could happen. Simply to put to bed the silly little word games people play with 'technically they are blocking the vehicles people are in, not the people'. Car, bicycle, horse, or walking. It is a public highway and you don't deliberately hinder other people. If that's what protest is thought of then you won't win anyone to your cause, except they aren't trying to win over anyone. These useful idiots, which don't represent society, are being funded by powerful interests groups with their own agendas. 'Just stop oil' is a political slogan and reeks vested interest groups. The mere existence of these 'protestors' is used simply to justify policies that have already been decided. We as a people now need to 'save the planet' because it is 'our duty'. We must pay high taxes, we must accept expensive fuel, poor services and overcrowding. Seriously, they'll be giving out white feathers to those who don't blindly follow this tosh next.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about. Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source?" There have definitely been ambulances blocked as I've seen reports of it on the news and in one case protesters pushed out of the way to an allow an ambulance through but I don't know if it resulted in the outcome for the person being anymore negative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about. Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source? There have definitely been ambulances blocked as I've seen reports of it on the news and in one case protesters pushed out of the way to an allow an ambulance through but I don't know if it resulted in the outcome for the person being anymore negative." As I said this was a weaponised myth. I have seen these stories and via FOI to the ambulance service it has been established that protestors did NOT block ambulances and in fact moved away to ensure it/they could get through. I posted a link to this on another thread in the past week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source? We were giving a rhetorical example of a scenario that could happen. Simply to put to bed the silly little word games people play with 'technically they are blocking the vehicles people are in, not the people'. Car, bicycle, horse, or walking. It is a public highway and you don't deliberately hinder other people. If that's what protest is thought of then you won't win anyone to your cause, except they aren't trying to win over anyone. These useful idiots, which don't represent society, are being funded by powerful interests groups with their own agendas. 'Just stop oil' is a political slogan and reeks vested interest groups. The mere existence of these 'protestors' is used simply to justify policies that have already been decided. We as a people now need to 'save the planet' because it is 'our duty'. We must pay high taxes, we must accept expensive fuel, poor services and overcrowding. Seriously, they'll be giving out white feathers to those who don't blindly follow this tosh next. "So it was hyperbole! Appearing to claim protestors have stopped ambulances is a crap way to discuss things. How about simply sticking to the truth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically They aren't stopping the people, just the vehicles. Technically when a person is close to death in the back of an ambulance getting stopped due to 'protestors' blocking the road they only stopping the vehicle. They're all useful idiots to the powers that be anyway. Notice how they don't start targeting government buildings or symbols of power? There was the young lad who threw eggs at the King recently, but its not exactly clear what his 'protest' was about. Is that ambulance story true? I heard it had been debunked as a myth? Do you have a source? There have definitely been ambulances blocked as I've seen reports of it on the news and in one case protesters pushed out of the way to an allow an ambulance through but I don't know if it resulted in the outcome for the person being anymore negative. As I said this was a weaponised myth. I have seen these stories and via FOI to the ambulance service it has been established that protestors did NOT block ambulances and in fact moved away to ensure it/they could get through. I posted a link to this on another thread in the past week." You can post as many links as you like. There is video evidence of this, Plus interviews with the family of someone who was in an ambulance that could not get through because of protesters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If these protesters are up on the gantry why does it stop traffic? I can understand the traffic stopping when they are in the road but not when they are above it. If they climb up just leave them there and keep the traffic moving. I don't know if the ambulance story is true or not but it's certainly possible. Apparently there was a guy on a phone in who missed his own father's funeral because of these protesters" As I put in my previous post on here. Main thing is if drop something. Can cause very serious accident . So police have no choice but to close motorway in both directions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. " That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. " Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs)." To add... A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said: "Just Stop Oil policy, is and always has been, to let blue light emergency services through. "It was reported this morning that emergency services were blocked in Knightsbridge. In reality one of our supporters directed an ambulance away from the road block and our supporters left the road to allow the fire engine to pass." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs)." That is semantics and you know it. Emergency vehicles have been delayed because of these protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs). To add... A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said: "Just Stop Oil policy, is and always has been, to let blue light emergency services through. "It was reported this morning that emergency services were blocked in Knightsbridge. In reality one of our supporters directed an ambulance away from the road block and our supporters left the road to allow the fire engine to pass."" Well of course they say that. In the same interview the same activist said The situation is more serious than the emergency services being held up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs). To add... A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said: "Just Stop Oil policy, is and always has been, to let blue light emergency services through. "It was reported this morning that emergency services were blocked in Knightsbridge. In reality one of our supporters directed an ambulance away from the road block and our supporters left the road to allow the fire engine to pass."" That's good of them to have an official policy on who can use the public highways when. I think I must have missed the bit where they were elected to decide who can do what where. Maybe we can all set up our own little fiefdoms and make up the law as we go along. This is what happens when the state infrastructure collapses. At least we now know what it's like to live in some failed tinpot state where anyone can set up roadblocks whenever they feel like it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If these protesters are up on the gantry why does it stop traffic? I can understand the traffic stopping when they are in the road but not when they are above it. If they climb up just leave them there and keep the traffic moving. I don't know if the ambulance story is true or not but it's certainly possible. Apparently there was a guy on a phone in who missed his own father's funeral because of these protesters As I put in my previous post on here. Main thing is if drop something. Can cause very serious accident . So police have no choice but to close motorway in both directions. " I guess they have rules and regulations to abide by but it's infuriating. Personally I say let them climb up and then ignore them. Let people get to work and hospital or wherever. When emergency services are impacted by the knock on effects of these things then maybe the risk of leaving them up there outweighs the fact good people could be put in serious danger | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The government has a vested interest in demonising the protestors. They love to get their supporters frothing mad against the enemy of the day." Precisely that, as well as companies who are lobbying for green contracts and grants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad."
Unable to address the actual comment, as seems to be the way with you
If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then how is it "violent"?
As I don't actually support their methods, and have written that elsewhere in the thread it makes the rest of what you have written pretty nonsensical and a transparent attempt to distract the discussion with personal insults. It seems that's your pattern of posting.
As you have been completely unable to provide even the smallest shred of verifiable information to support your confusion and anger over climate change there is no reason to take you seriously.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs). To add... A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said: "Just Stop Oil policy, is and always has been, to let blue light emergency services through. "It was reported this morning that emergency services were blocked in Knightsbridge. In reality one of our supporters directed an ambulance away from the road block and our supporters left the road to allow the fire engine to pass."" Oh Birlnd, you often highlight misinformation based on the reliability of the source. This isn't a hill I would die on... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me." The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive." Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! " The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case?" Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? " My thought is . Police arrive a gantry . Stop all traffic. Then have to wait for ‘ trained ‘ persons to get there with correct equipment to bring down protesters. I am not sure if actually police? Fire brigade are trained or again trained rescue teams. As I said in previous post here. Know how to put harness on and type of ‘fall restraint’ to use . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? " it doesn't take much for a peaceful protest to turn into a riot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? My thought is . Police arrive a gantry . Stop all traffic. Then have to wait for ‘ trained ‘ persons to get there with correct equipment to bring down protesters. I am not sure if actually police? Fire brigade are trained or again trained rescue teams. As I said in previous post here. Know how to put harness on and type of ‘fall restraint’ to use . " Add in the meantime precious resources are being used on these people that could be deployed elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? it doesn't take much for a peaceful protest to turn into a riot." That's exactly how the London riots in 2011 started. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of the groups that are currently causing disruption claim to be peaceful however people have now started to get injured and the guy that threw eggs at the king today is far from peaceful. It can only be a matter of time before somebody is killed as a direct result of these actions. Do the means justify the ends? No, it's inevitable that eventually these fools will injure or kill someone. But in part I blame the police. The response has been pathetic. This has encouraged them in their selfish self-promotion. If the police and authorities had clamped down on this from the start, and made clear it wouldn't be tolerated, it would have been over weeks ago. I reluctantly agree with you. We don't live too far from the M25 and all these blockades do is cause traffic elsewhere mainly in residential areas causing even more poor quality air. Temporary increase in pollution due to a protest or Permanent damage to our lives, climate and lands due to fossil fuels and oil. Pick one I don't think what the protesters are doing is realistically going to make any difference to the climate in 100 years' time. They are just a bunch of spoilt trustafarians, and oddly almost entirely white. Since when did the colour of your skin become a climate change issue? Effective protest has to disrupt the people and those in power itherwise, sadly nothing drastic changes. The Suffragette movement, black civil rights in the USA, anti apartheid protests in South Africa, even Union protests fighting for working conditions all needed to make a stand to make a difference. Like it all or, climate change is a serious issue that will cause ecological and economic issues that will cause much bigger disruptions to life in the future "
Failure of media to make the argument for action on climate change. Fracking flip flops showed they didn’t care about danger of pollution our drinking water! People are dying every day (floods , fires and heat waves) and our children and we are victims of the self interests of oil lobbyist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? " Do they get removed by the police? Should there be a right to protest? Do you want to make any protest march on any public road illegal as that will also obstruct the highway? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? it doesn't take much for a peaceful protest to turn into a riot." So there should be no peaceful protest allowed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. That is shocking, plus it is only the ones you can see, there will be many other roads blocked causing issues. I'm at a loss to why the police are not lifting them off the ground and moving them. I have heard many times from people on here who are against the new public order bill state that it is not needed, because laws already exist to deal with these incidents. it doesn't look like it to me. The reason that the Police cannot forcibly remove protestors is because they are being neither violent or abusive towards Police or the general public. Is being disruptive and causing inconvenience adequate justification for the use of force? It is an offence to block a public highway, but Police have to protect the right to protest. It's complicated. Why would anyone expect the law to be simple? It's a mish-mash of conflicting rights and obstructions of rights and intents and outcomes. What still surprises me that these protestors do not realise that their action is counterproductive. Which is why specific changes need to be made to existing laws, would you agree? A lack of awareness in how counterproductive their actions have become, is remarkable! The police make a judgement. Protestors are all eventually removed, are they not? They aren't leaving because they got bored. Is that not the case? Timings.. Should criminals, which is what the are when they obstruct the highway, be given time to continue the crime? How would that relate to wider spectrums of crime and the police response? it doesn't take much for a peaceful protest to turn into a riot. That's exactly how the London riots in 2011 started. " You also want to ban peaceful protest "in case" it becomes a riot? The London riots started with a Police shooting. Right or wrong, an act of fatal violence. Rather a different trigger for community anger than climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/amp/emergency-vehicles-blocked-by-just-stop-oil-protest-in-west-london-rush-hour-12717957 Just incase anyone still believes this didn't happen. Ok just to be clear, they did not stop an ambulance. The knock on effect to all the traffic impacted the ambulance. Same goes for the fire engine. From the article you link to... Videos shared online showed the emergency vehicles on blue lights unable to get through the traffic after around 32 protesters blocked three roads in Knightsbridge and Brompton Road. The protesters stopped traffic from travelling in either direction, with some gluing themselves to the asphalt. One video showed a stationary fire engine in the middle of a junction near Knightsbridge Underground station, with protesters blocking both the road behind and in front of it. Just Stop Oil later tweeted a video showing protesters moving out of the way of a fire engine with the caption: "Just Stop Oil supporters pause roadblock to let fire engine through." That article is from October and there has been FOI response about those incidents from the Ambulance Service saying no major disruption. For avoidance of doubt I am not condoning their behaviour. I am just trying to make sure we know the truth (which plays back into my other posts about Agent Provocateurs). To add... A Just Stop Oil spokesperson said: "Just Stop Oil policy, is and always has been, to let blue light emergency services through. "It was reported this morning that emergency services were blocked in Knightsbridge. In reality one of our supporters directed an ambulance away from the road block and our supporters left the road to allow the fire engine to pass." Oh Birlnd, you often highlight misinformation based on the reliability of the source. This isn't a hill I would die on..." Sky News isn’t a reliable source? Everything I quoted was lifted directly from the link provided by lornajo83 so I am unclear on your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad.
Unable to address the actual comment, as seems to be the way with you
If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then how is it "violent"?
As I don't actually support their methods, and have written that elsewhere in the thread it makes the rest of what you have written pretty nonsensical and a transparent attempt to distract the discussion with personal insults. It seems that's your pattern of posting.
As you have been completely unable to provide even the smallest shred of verifiable information to support your confusion and anger over climate change there is no reason to take you seriously.
"You're the biggest single issue ranter in the forum, and you accuse others of being "angry and confused"! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My beef with the protests are this. People quote how historical protest's have influenced and caused changes for the better. Brilliant no problems here. However that was a different time and things have changed. Mainly the ability to voice opinions rather than having to protest there's many ways to get your opinion out there gain support and spread the word. Many social media platforms and outlets, this can be done in a way without affecting normal people just trying to live, without wasting valuable police resources. Fact is a majority of protesters are "professional anarchists" who just jump from one cause to another with the only agenda to disrupt the government and cause bad feeling. If you want to protest against oil use and production go the the country where this is being produced and protest. Oh wait you know that you will get treated very different so opt for the easy touch from our hamstrung police unable to do anything without being criticized. And who the hell can afford to take out enough time to go and protest when you should be working??? I doubt it is many single parents who are struggling to make end's meet working two jobs. Probably someone who's parents are lawyers and doctors and they have taken a gap year. Just generalising but I fail to see who else can afford to be full time activists?? Please enlighten me." Jools... “Fact is a majority of protesters are "professional anarchists" who just jump from one cause to another with the only agenda to disrupt the government and cause bad feeling.” Are they? How do you know that? Source? I already posited another theory above (they are not mutually exclusive BTW). Agent Provocateurs for which we have historical precedence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? Causing disruption is not peaceful protest Yes it is. If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then it's peaceful, isn't it? Is "peaceful" protest being quiet and out of the way so that they can be easily ignored? I'm not surprised at all that you are apologising for these terrorists. You seem to be undergoing the same radicalisation process. Obsessive, angry, single issue posts. The early signs are all there. I blame the government and the education system. They have all been escalating the rhetoric around climate for years in an attempt to ready people for more control, poor economic performance and higher taxes, and now we can see the results. Deluded kids, who instead of being out enjoying themselves, are sobbing into their iPhones on top of motorway gantries. Very sad.
Unable to address the actual comment, as seems to be the way with you
If it is not violent or abusive or intimidating, then how is it "violent"?
As I don't actually support their methods, and have written that elsewhere in the thread it makes the rest of what you have written pretty nonsensical and a transparent attempt to distract the discussion with personal insults. It seems that's your pattern of posting.
As you have been completely unable to provide even the smallest shred of verifiable information to support your confusion and anger over climate change there is no reason to take you seriously.
You're the biggest single issue ranter in the forum, and you accuse others of being "angry and confused"!"In fairness, you post more angry personal insults than you do contributions to the topic. So you can't blame people for thinking you're angry and confused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My beef with the protests are this. People quote how historical protest's have influenced and caused changes for the better. Brilliant no problems here. However that was a different time and things have changed. Mainly the ability to voice opinions rather than having to protest there's many ways to get your opinion out there gain support and spread the word. Many social media platforms and outlets, this can be done in a way without affecting normal people just trying to live, without wasting valuable police resources. Fact is a majority of protesters are "professional anarchists" who just jump from one cause to another with the only agenda to disrupt the government and cause bad feeling. If you want to protest against oil use and production go the the country where this is being produced and protest. Oh wait you know that you will get treated very different so opt for the easy touch from our hamstrung police unable to do anything without being criticized. And who the hell can afford to take out enough time to go and protest when you should be working??? I doubt it is many single parents who are struggling to make end's meet working two jobs. Probably someone who's parents are lawyers and doctors and they have taken a gap year. Just generalising but I fail to see who else can afford to be full time activists?? Please enlighten me." Why go to the country where oil is drilled or refined to protest, instead of the country you're a citizen of, that is consuming the oil? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My beef with the protests are this. People quote how historical protest's have influenced and caused changes for the better. Brilliant no problems here. However that was a different time and things have changed. Mainly the ability to voice opinions rather than having to protest there's many ways to get your opinion out there gain support and spread the word. Many social media platforms and outlets, this can be done in a way without affecting normal people just trying to live, without wasting valuable police resources. Fact is a majority of protesters are "professional anarchists" who just jump from one cause to another with the only agenda to disrupt the government and cause bad feeling. If you want to protest against oil use and production go the the country where this is being produced and protest. Oh wait you know that you will get treated very different so opt for the easy touch from our hamstrung police unable to do anything without being criticized. And who the hell can afford to take out enough time to go and protest when you should be working??? I doubt it is many single parents who are struggling to make end's meet working two jobs. Probably someone who's parents are lawyers and doctors and they have taken a gap year. Just generalising but I fail to see who else can afford to be full time activists?? Please enlighten me. Why go to the country where oil is drilled or refined to protest, instead of the country you're a citizen of, that is consuming the oil? " Because they claim it's a world issue which I have no doubt that it is. Then go to the source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
