Just in the first minute, i could tell she's at least autistic and probably have other mental illnesses. Pity the vulnerable have been sucked into social issues and genuinely believe the pile of excrement they're spouting.
"Just stop oil"
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Just in the first minute, i could tell she's at least autistic and probably have other mental illnesses. Pity the vulnerable have been sucked into social issues and genuinely believe the pile of excrement they're spouting.
If she can't go 5 mins talking with someone with an opposing view without looking like she's having a mental breakdown no one is going to listen.
Sorry are you siding with the almost dead sky news reporter or the young lass trying to answer his question?
Sky and gammon baby news seem to be pushing the line that climate change is a China problem (ignoring that we outsource all our dirty industry to them) - so she has a point that the media are still in the 'smoking is safe' mindset.
Soldato
That's a bit Monty Python .... People's Front of Stop Oil, Popular People's Front to Stop Oil, Committee to Stop Oil (also known as Bob)
Splitters !
Childish labelling of things you don't agree with... Check
I guess you are the same generation.
I have a daughter who I want to grow up in a world that recognises a world that works on a finite resource that destroys its own environment is dumb.Childish labelling of things you don't agree with... Check
I guess you are the same generation.
She is 28 ... Truss has been a bad role person.
similar inarticulate interview on r4 today, but intelligent interviewer empathetically didn't deliver coup de grace, like, apparently Sky 'journalist'
... but she announced they are suspending gantries to give government time to reflect, and put the newer punishment bill through
similar inarticulate interview on r4 today, but intelligent interviewer empathetically didn't deliver coup de grace, like, apparently Sky 'journalist'
... but she announced they are suspending gantries to give government time to reflect, and put the newer punishment bill through
So have I but I don't use resort to name calling.
Where was the name calling?
Man of Honour
And this is my problem with this movement, it's full of morons like this who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, have no knowledge about the subject to argue it without screeching and shouting. They're just in it for 5 seconds on TV and because "it seems a cool thing to do"
Just lock them up
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
I'd rather the law was changed so people who create havoc like this are blanked by the media and just described as protestors and not given the oxygen of publicity.
Permabanned
Despite JSO's best endeavours I still dream of being the next Jed Clampett and discover oil under my back garden 
Soldato
If everything a politician says in public is considered under oath, you'd have a deal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
Maybe to clarify, don't mind Just Stop Oil having publicity just specifically not when they close major infrastructure.
Let's put aside your immature rant about pieces of pork for a second. I don't side with anyone here but as I said in my next post. If she can't put her point across with looking like a complete window licker and having a hysterical melt down live on air, then she's lost the argument before it begins
Last edited:
So you dont want free press then?
Just what do people want this country to become? North Korea?
**** off!That's a bit Monty Python .... People's Front of Stop Oil, Popular People's Front to Stop Oil, Committee to Stop Oil (also known as Bob)
Splitters !
Soldato
Middle class dreck. I bet she's never seen the inside of a council house in her life.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,148
Am I surprised at the 'middle white older men' response to just stop oil here on OCUK forum ? No of course not, many here calling for very harsh action against the protestors, while having a pop at them.
Now, before you all get your heckles up & have a crack at me for pointing out the rightiness some on this forum regularly display........
I am actually not going to reply as 'left wing' as some often accuse me of.
People very easily try and simplify things, simply using one of the protesters (in the linked clip) unwillingness to have a sensible convo on the entire cause makes her msg easy to dismiss (TBF she realllllyy isn't helping herself by talking over the presenter) - but also they have been having sensible convos for years and got no where, so you can understand their/her urgency.
You really need to break down this issue into the scientific facts of the situation vs the need for humans to get around & civil freedoms.
1) I am a person (me, personally), who absolutely cannot in any way use public transport, my life would be impossible & I could not work, it never has been and never will be a possibility for me - I absolutely cannot use "socialist" transport systems (i.e. buses & trains!! lol) - I HAVE TO have my own transportation system.
2) Will their msg that the modern world burning oil, operating under capitalism cause the collapse of the entire planet with only the mega rich/prepaired surviving? - Yes also absolutely 100% true, they are not wrong, humanity has no future with the way we all operate globally right now, something has to change, but most people don't realise this and/or refuse to believe it and dismiss it.
So, I'm a person that needs a car/van, but I also know doing so adds to the very real chance of global collapse, do I go right wing and say 'my small contribution wont make a massive difference to the whole issue, so I will do what I damn well like', or do I continue to live hypocritically aware I need a vehicle?
The real answer for me, and the sensible one is, understanding 99% of individuals (i.e. not millionaires/billionaires) acting as individuals can't solve this - we are all pressured economically into having to have a fuel powered car, I cannot afford expensive electric cars, I cannot sit at home and not work, I have to eat - im trapped into having to travel to survive, knowing doing so adds to pollution.
So the only answer is, forcing the global elite to act on it - the ultra rich.
Quite simply tax them, properly, its not cruel to them, they will still be rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams, it will raise billions to convert all our transportation systems to electric, and then use renewables to power it all - again the infrastructure paid for by them / governments.
Of course many will point out 'this isn't feasible economically' - it is, maths wise, but many poor people often weirdly defend the ultra rich, what you really mean to say is, the ultra rich wont like having their wealth slashed in half to pay for humanities conversion to electric vehicles - tough, they will still be much better off than many.
So really, we need to trade in our vehicles for electric conversion, or new vehicles, funded in a way to make it plausible for us all to afford, undoubtably road tax would go up to thousands of £ per year to rake in the money that used to be on fuel (sad but likely)
1) Convert all cars/vans/lorries (where possible) to electric, a global initiative not seen since the moon landings to get it done
2) For the time being we'll need fuel still to power air, boats etc, so you can't just stop using oil overnight
3) Hold the ultra rich to account, enough is enough, they have enough, its time to use the monetary power for good.
Of course I couldn't write this without pointing out that simply stop eating meat would drop global immersions 10-12 fold more than doing all of the above plan............seems much easier to have a plant burger than upheave global transport systems, but as I said, most people don't like to entertain scientific fact, but that's a convo for another day
Now, before you all get your heckles up & have a crack at me for pointing out the rightiness some on this forum regularly display........
I am actually not going to reply as 'left wing' as some often accuse me of.
People very easily try and simplify things, simply using one of the protesters (in the linked clip) unwillingness to have a sensible convo on the entire cause makes her msg easy to dismiss (TBF she realllllyy isn't helping herself by talking over the presenter) - but also they have been having sensible convos for years and got no where, so you can understand their/her urgency.
You really need to break down this issue into the scientific facts of the situation vs the need for humans to get around & civil freedoms.
1) I am a person (me, personally), who absolutely cannot in any way use public transport, my life would be impossible & I could not work, it never has been and never will be a possibility for me - I absolutely cannot use "socialist" transport systems (i.e. buses & trains!! lol) - I HAVE TO have my own transportation system.
2) Will their msg that the modern world burning oil, operating under capitalism cause the collapse of the entire planet with only the mega rich/prepaired surviving? - Yes also absolutely 100% true, they are not wrong, humanity has no future with the way we all operate globally right now, something has to change, but most people don't realise this and/or refuse to believe it and dismiss it.
So, I'm a person that needs a car/van, but I also know doing so adds to the very real chance of global collapse, do I go right wing and say 'my small contribution wont make a massive difference to the whole issue, so I will do what I damn well like', or do I continue to live hypocritically aware I need a vehicle?
The real answer for me, and the sensible one is, understanding 99% of individuals (i.e. not millionaires/billionaires) acting as individuals can't solve this - we are all pressured economically into having to have a fuel powered car, I cannot afford expensive electric cars, I cannot sit at home and not work, I have to eat - im trapped into having to travel to survive, knowing doing so adds to pollution.
So the only answer is, forcing the global elite to act on it - the ultra rich.
Quite simply tax them, properly, its not cruel to them, they will still be rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams, it will raise billions to convert all our transportation systems to electric, and then use renewables to power it all - again the infrastructure paid for by them / governments.
Of course many will point out 'this isn't feasible economically' - it is, maths wise, but many poor people often weirdly defend the ultra rich, what you really mean to say is, the ultra rich wont like having their wealth slashed in half to pay for humanities conversion to electric vehicles - tough, they will still be much better off than many.
So really, we need to trade in our vehicles for electric conversion, or new vehicles, funded in a way to make it plausible for us all to afford, undoubtably road tax would go up to thousands of £ per year to rake in the money that used to be on fuel (sad but likely)
1) Convert all cars/vans/lorries (where possible) to electric, a global initiative not seen since the moon landings to get it done
2) For the time being we'll need fuel still to power air, boats etc, so you can't just stop using oil overnight
3) Hold the ultra rich to account, enough is enough, they have enough, its time to use the monetary power for good.
Of course I couldn't write this without pointing out that simply stop eating meat would drop global immersions 10-12 fold more than doing all of the above plan............seems much easier to have a plant burger than upheave global transport systems, but as I said, most people don't like to entertain scientific fact, but that's a convo for another day
Last edited: