"Just stop oil"

Devilman said:
Police should be respected, but never feared. That is entirely the wrong mindset. You do not police or rule via fear, That is the remit of bullies and dictators.
Click to expand...

The only fear was that I remember if you were of that mindset of doing bad things. Most normal law abiding people saw the Police as they were glad to see them. As well as talking to them in the streets. They were respected and respect given back then as you felt that sense of authority. You knew, don't mess with them.

As the 80s and 90s as well as some of the 2000s, you knew the Police were there to keep law and order plus to your aid. The decline started setting in at least 2004/5. Now so many people don't feel safe from the Police force anymore. Look how empty the streets are at nights plus the boy racers know they can get away with anything these days. You rarely see patrol cars out and about let alone any Police walking the streets.

Remember the days you'd be in serious trouble if you were brought home in a Police car? That sense of fear don't be doing stupid stuff out there. Or as some parents had the mindset of, it wasn't the vandalism or theiving some of the parents were seriously cheesed off about. It was the fact their sons were caught doing it.
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
I understand that but the problem is some people will just not respect the police and fear is the only way. Perhaps not physical far but fear of consequences for ones actions.

Just been called and I have delivery in Belvedere tomorrow. :( I hope they have got them down by then.
Click to expand...

Generally I agree with the idea that people should be discouraged from doing "wrong" by "fear of the consequences" , but I do not believe that they should fear the police, either as individual officers, or as an institution.

The issue (as I see it) is the lack of both police arresting people for behaviour like this, combined with the courts being unwilling, or unable to charge them for it.

People will often lose their "fear of the consequences" if they see people getting away with that stuff day in, day out with no apparent consequences.


*Edit* Looks like a pretty good chance of sustained rain on Thursday, wonder if they will be still be up there when it's lashing down with rain?
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that there hasnt been any cases of people covering the muppets in dog mess, faecal matter, urine or raw sewage, they did it with the Captain Tom memorial so they think its fair play. I would be surprised if these people sit around more than 10 mins covered in or surrounded by that, then again looking at some of them it probably wouldnt smell much different.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
I am surprised that there hasnt been any cases of people covering the muppets in dog mess, faecal matter, urine or raw sewage, they did it with the Captain Tom memorial so they think its fair play. I would be surprised if these people sit around more than 10 mins covered in or surrounded by that, then again looking at some of them it probably wouldnt smell much different.
Click to expand...
It would be the people doing that that would be arrested though. The police don't seem to be there to arrest the protestors, more to protect them from the public they are annoying more and more every day.
 
Devilman said:
Police should be respected, but never feared. That is entirely the wrong mindset. You do not police or rule via fear, That is the remit of bullies and dictators.
Click to expand...

No we are policed by consent. However it is the consent of the majority to go about their daily business without let or hindrance.
People who deliberately disrupt should feel a little fear. We must be the only country in the world to let a tiny minority create such a disturbance to people's lives and livings.

If they want to sit on a bridge, let them. Don't close it, just arrest them as they come back down.
 
These kind of protests are what happens when the government won't listen:

Suffragettes started with a peaceful campaign using constitutional means. That failed, they were ignored. Then they went as far as planting bombs and booby trapping post boxes. The end result was that women won the right to vote. Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

People's lives are being inconvenienced by Stop Oil, but people do need to open their eyes and realise that we simply cannot go on destroying the world's climate. We need to change the way we live our lives, fly less, use less "throw away" items. The government needs to make it possible - make trains cheaper/better, introduce carbon taxes that incentivise good behaviour.

Science has been warning us about this for decades, we've ignored it, head in sand, someone else's problem.

But, floods, wildfires, sea levels, crop failures, starvation, ecosystem collapse are all starting to happen now.

And yes I do own a car, I have flown once in the last 6 years, of course I have a carbon footprint. But I do try to tread as lightly as possible.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
I am surprised that there hasnt been any cases of people covering the muppets in dog mess, faecal matter, urine or raw sewage, they did it with the Captain Tom memorial so they think its fair play.
Click to expand...

This is why she said she did it. I can see what she's saying but I can't agree with her actions.

I know she aimed for it to represent what she says we're doing to him metaphorically but to then do the same literal action, well it's counterproductive.

I think pouring it on herself may have had just as much, if not more, of an impact.
 
If everyone looked at their carbon footprint towards reducing it, if would be a good thing. These protests do nothing when the main perpetrators are in the USA and China where if you did protest you could get a cracked pate for your troubles. The UK contribution is small and also shrinking.
 
Hodders said:
These kind of protests are what happens when the government won't listen:

Suffragettes started with a peaceful campaign using constitutional means. That failed, they were ignored. Then they went as far as planting bombs and booby trapping post boxes. The end result was that women won the right to vote. Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

People's lives are being inconvenienced by Stop Oil, but people do need to open their eyes and realise that we simply cannot go on destroying the world's climate. We need to change the way we live our lives, fly less, use less "throw away" items. The government needs to make it possible - make trains cheaper/better, introduce carbon taxes that incentivise good behaviour.

Science has been warning us about this for decades, we've ignored it, head in sand, someone else's problem.

But, floods, wildfires, sea levels, crop failures, starvation, ecosystem collapse are all starting to happen now.

And yes I do own a car, I have flown once in the last 6 years, of course I have a carbon footprint. But I do try to tread as lightly as possible.
Click to expand...

The world population has trebled in the last 70 years. That is more of a worry than using oil. That is what they should be protesting. No form of clean living will even make up for that. Population has been below 2 billion for 10,000 years. It has quadrupled in 100 years. That is what is frightening.

KPd1T4U.png
 
Last edited:
adidan said:

This is why she said she did it. I can see what she's saying but I can't agree with her actions.

I know she aimed for it to represent what she says we're doing to him metaphorically but to then do the same literal action, well it's counterproductive.

I think pouring it on herself may have had just as much, if not more, of an impact.
Click to expand...
Yep, I would have had more respect for her if she tipped it over the steps of a big oil company or something that was in opposition to the movement. For her to desecrate a memorial to a elderly, decorated veteran that spent the last year of his life to raise money during a pandemic i would say does more harm to their cause than help.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
Yep, I would have had more respect for her if she tipped it over the steps of a big oil company or something that was in opposition to the movement. For her to desecrate a memorial to a elderly, decorated veteran that spent the last year of his life to raise money during a pandemic i would say does more harm to their cause than help.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get she was trying to show what we're doing to his memory but by actually doing it herself her message is completely lost. Completely.

It may have made the press, but nobody is talking about it for the reasons she wants. I just can't understand the logic, it was so counterproductive.
 
adam cool dude said:
The world population has trebled in the last 70 years. That is more of a worry than using oil. That is what they should be protesting. No form of clean living will even make up for that. Population has been below 2 billion for 10,000 years. It has quadrupled in 100 years. That is what is frightening.

KPd1T4U.png
Click to expand...
Western nations are facing a collapsing birth rate, it will cause us massive problems, this is why some countries are now pying for you to have children.

money.com

The Government Will Pay You to Have Babies in These Countries

Strategy to address plunging birth rates.
money.com money.com


Financial incentives for having children are increasingly appearing as a response to low birth rate numbers in places like Finland, Estonia, Italy, Japan, and Australia. Other ways to bolster birth rates include increased access to childcare, longer and better paid maternity/paternity leave, plus deconstructing traditional gender dynamics by empowering women to have jobs while also having children.


Finland also implements other family benefit programs like the baby box starter kit and a monthly allowance of 100 euros for parents.


In Estonia, families are rewarded for having more children. The larger the family the more money they receive. This, combined with other financial benefits and a year-long paid maternity leave, has helped birth rates to rise, and could be improving or at least stabilizing the economy.


Countries like China are struggling to recover from declining birth rates because of the one-child rule that was dismantled in 2016, according to The Guardian. For 37 years people were only allowed to have one child per household, but now the limit been raised to two.
Click to expand...


Who do you think is going to pay the taxes to support you in old age?
 
Last edited:
adidan said:
Yeah, I get she was trying to show what we're doing to his memory but by actually doing it herself her message is completely lost. Completely.

It may have made the press, but nobody is talking about it for the reasons she wants. I just can't understand the logic, it was so counterproductive.
Click to expand...

It's quite sad that somebody so clever honestly thought it was a good idea that people would get on board with - "Look everybody, this is what we're doing to Sir Tom's legacy" - "No duck, you're just throwing **** on him".
 
LabR@t said:
Western nations are facing a collapsing birth rate, it will cause us massive problems, this is why some countries are now pying for you to have children.

money.com

The Government Will Pay You to Have Babies in These Countries

Strategy to address plunging birth rates.
money.com money.com





Who do you think is going to pay the taxes to support you in old age?
Click to expand...

I understand the problems with western civilisation needing younger people because it is all basically a massive pyramid scheme but if it is not changed we are more doomed than using oil.
 
adam cool dude said:
I understand the problems with western civilisation needing younger people because it is all basically a massive pyramid scheme but if it is not changed we are more doomed than using oil.
Click to expand...

Logan's run.

Logan's Run is a 1976 American science fiction action film[5] directed by Michael Anderson and starring Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, Roscoe Lee Browne, Farrah Fawcett, and Peter Ustinov. The screenplay by David Zelag Goodman is based on the 1967 novel Logan's Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a utopian future society on the surface, revealed as a dystopia where the population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman" who has terminated others who have attempted to escape death and is now faced with termination himself.
Click to expand...
Logan's Run explores utopian and dystopian themes, with the idea that characters willingly die instead of reaching advanced ages, reflecting the idea that "utopias require its participants to give something up in order to create harmony and uniformity".[25] Common dystopian themes include an evil ruling authority, the confiscation of children from parents,[26] life in a city, and the idea of human overpopulation, in this case causing the protagonists to leave the urban environment.[27]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom