Its not, as I said before all protests cause disruption and some cause very severe disruption, particularly the large ones in London. if people want to take this ridiculous stance that any protest which potentially causes an emergency vehicle to be delayed should be banned then virtually all protest would be banned.
Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, domestic terrorists?
- Thread starter Keltyx
- Start date
Its not, as I said before all protests cause disruption and some cause very severe disruption, particularly the large ones in London. if people want to take this ridiculous stance that any protest which potentially causes an emergency vehicle to be delayed should be banned then virtually all protest would be banned.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
That's demonstrably untrue. Plenty of protests do not cause any, or very little disruption and most wouldn't dream of holding up an emergency vehicle.
No-one is denying their right to protest, in fact most support it. Just not in the manner they are currently doing it. They've lost the support of the public now and rightly so. It's a complete own goal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,087
- Location
- Surrey
Good cause, wrong action. Don't **** off the people you want to get on your side. FFS.
I've listened and watched some of these Insulate Britain people speaking.
The number 1 rule is they should have ONE spokes person, and not allow any person just to speak to the media.
Most of them seem to struggle with a form of cognitive dissonance. They think they are only talking to the person in front of them, and that they are only arguing with the government. They don't seem to realise that the public is going to decide how much pressure is put on the government.
Lower income people can already get free insulation.
So far each one of the Insulate Britain people on tv don't even have insulation themselves or know their own house rating.
I suspect the group is being used as an example for the police to gain more powers. They could have been charged already. But someone is blocking it so they are going in and out of the police station.
Liam Norton doesn't come across as genuine.
The number 1 rule is they should have ONE spokes person, and not allow any person just to speak to the media.
Most of them seem to struggle with a form of cognitive dissonance. They think they are only talking to the person in front of them, and that they are only arguing with the government. They don't seem to realise that the public is going to decide how much pressure is put on the government.
Lower income people can already get free insulation.
So far each one of the Insulate Britain people on tv don't even have insulation themselves or know their own house rating.
I suspect the group is being used as an example for the police to gain more powers. They could have been charged already. But someone is blocking it so they are going in and out of the police station.
Liam Norton doesn't come across as genuine.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,345
- Location
- London
Well it's not, any protest outside parliament that blocks the road delays emergency vehicles as there's a hospital on the other side of the bridge. The only difference is the ambulance knows in advance and takes the long way around.
I can't believe they're still doing this, why not sit in front of police stations, government buildings, or even Downing Street rather than irritating normal people who have nothing to do with government policy. After seeing the latest video, these people are going to set off the wrong person and it's all going to end badly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,260
- Location
- London
Police stations?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
We're not talking specifically about protests outside parliament though are we. The claim was about protests generally.
Yes, any protest which blocks any building or road will cause a delayed response, those massive marches in London would cause a severe delay to the residents of the surrounding tower blocks and offices so they are violent protests, right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,281
- Location
- The South
Insulate Britain is "peeing in the wind" and a perfect example of how you shouldn't protest. Not only is their message a complete blur in the media with it instead being awash with the trouble they're causing, they've also managed to alienate and discourage a once sympathetic public to the cause whilst at the same harming future climate protests.
This will end with either one (or a bunch) of the protesters getting injured or "new powers" being brought in to deal with them - it certainly won't be the result any one wants
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
So you concede that there are protests that do not block buildings and therefore do not cause disruption?
I've never claimed these protests are violent, only that they cause real world issues, some of which involve missing hospital appointments, scans for babies, missed education etc. Which as I explained I view as semantics to deflect from the issues IB are causing.
Last edited:
Who's saying the protests are violent?
The claim was that the protests are peaceful. Which they're very much not, as a number of people have pointed out. Some of those people (including me) have even explained why "not violent" doesn't mean "peaceful". You're shuffling the goalposts around.
If that's correct why did the government need to get an injunction? We only have the right to peaceful protest. If the protest wasn't peaceful then they wouldn't need an injunction to remove protesters?
They would do so anyway if it was politically useful to do so. The protestors still had significant public support at the time, mostly from people who hadn't been directly affected by them. Or maybe the law was unclear on details, so a precedent was needed.
The protestors make people suffer. They cause harm to people. Sooner or later, they will cause people to die. Their sole purpose is to make life worse for as many people as possible. That's not peaceful. It's not violent, but it's not peaceful. Like harassment, for example.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
The right to protest comes with responsibility, just because the protestors do not see themselves getting what they want, immediately, is no justification for ratcheting up the pressure to make the general public's life more and more interrupted and unpleasant.
Just how far do people think protest should be taken in the desire to pressure the government or general public into compliance? Protesting seems to be being blurred more and more with trying to enforce the protestors' wishes by ever more heinous actions and activities.
Personally I think our governments have been FAR too generous in the legislation re protesting and a clamp down needs applying as those that protest are now being unreasonable if not bloody minded and also potentially dangerous. There's always some protest or other, if every protest group was allowed to block the highways and byways the country would grind to a stop, which is ridiculous.
Just how far do people think protest should be taken in the desire to pressure the government or general public into compliance? Protesting seems to be being blurred more and more with trying to enforce the protestors' wishes by ever more heinous actions and activities.
Personally I think our governments have been FAR too generous in the legislation re protesting and a clamp down needs applying as those that protest are now being unreasonable if not bloody minded and also potentially dangerous. There's always some protest or other, if every protest group was allowed to block the highways and byways the country would grind to a stop, which is ridiculous.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
@Ahleckz Looks like you were right. They seem to be gearing up for a COP26 protest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58910278
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58910278
Well, they're much more likely to get a firmer police response if they start inconveniencing 'important' people...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
Is Biden attending? I can’t imagine the secret service putting up with their nonsense for too long
Americans breaking up 'nonviolent' climate protests on foreign soil at a climate summit, just the look Biden needs.
Maybe he could offset it by meeting Greta Thunberg. She has graciously offered to allow him an audience with her despite being pretty sure that he would just be a waste of her time.
Or maybe he could just not go to the conference. It would be reasonable for a politician to avoid putting themself in danger from extremists who don't care if people die as a result of their actions. It's not a long step from that to killing people.
Maybe all the attendees could agree to give in to the protestor's demands and cancel the whole climate conference. That's what the protestors are all about - making things impossible.