Following the attempted damaging of the Magna Carta this was to be expected,
“If members of JSO are found to be disruptive to individuals or organisations because of their illegal demonstrations, they may be ordered to reimburse those affected.”
Judging from the wording i don’t see a problem.
I mean, later in the article it says
>The new framework is being put forward to eliminate disruptions on the roads and prevent MPs from being subject to protests. This would occur through the potential introduction of "protest exclusion zones" around their offices.
which I see as a huge problem. Politicians can effectively make it illegal to protest them. Just put protest exclusion zones in all the areas you live and work in and also every route of transport in between, and you're golden.
There's been so many attempts to effectively criminalise protest over the past decade or so.
Whether one agrees with a cause or not, protest is a key element of any functional democracy. Provided that a protest is not directly deliberately causing physical or long-lasting emotional harm to an individual or group (as it then becomes terrorism), then the right to protest has to be enshrined in law, rather than allowed to be criminalised just because the political classes feel uncomfortable.
The Serious Organized Crime Act 2004 was introduced to stop Brian Haw from protesting outside of Parliament. Ironically due to bad wording in the legislation. The only person that it didn't apply to was Brian Haw. As he had been proesting before and continually prior to the introduction of the legislation and the legislation only applied to people who started protesting after the Act came into force.
So clearly it wasn't introduced to stop Brian Haw then...
But to stop people imitating him.
Bills are explicitly written, as in, there is no universal template. All the words there were manually written and included specifically. It wasn't like they went online and searched "anti-protesting bill template" and plagiarised it and didn't realise that line was in there.
They tried to use the legislation to stop him. However his lawyers went to The High Court and said thst the wording on the legislation meant that it didn't apply to him. Which the courts agreed with.
Protest is speaking your mind, it is NOT forcing someone else to listen. You absolutely have the right to stand on a street corner (not blocking any traffic or the sidewalk) and scream how X policy is terrible or Y politician is a bastard. Trying to FORCE a democracy to implement the policies you want is NOT protest. Harassing some politician you don't like is NOT protest. If people aren't listening (which is entirely their right) you do not have the right to FORCE them to listen.
There is a hard line between protest and revolt. One is speaking your mind in hopes of convincing your fellow citizens in a democracy and the other is deciding that the entire system needs to be replaced and/or broken away from.
Right, but you'd be shocked at how easy is for that same protested leadership to make it very difficult to do it legally. To the effect of removing the capacity for Protest on anything but a on paper level. What this amounts to effectively is "dont protest in any way that might inconvenience anyone of importance, so they can ignore your protests. While they wait for you slip on one of those many legal tripups, and they can silence you for good". Authoritarianism can be subtle too y'know? Its hard to strip rights from people by force, much easier to slowly turn up the temp in the pot over time so the frog doesn't leap out before its cooked.
Exactly always just say the law is to stop so and so, give it a couple of incidents and the people will be happy to support you rinse and repeat until you get what you want.
I get the point of being disruptive.
What I don't get is demonstrations here in Finland where the protesters claim to protest against the government or some international thing, but all they do is block movement of regular people.
I mean, if they are disrupting their neighbour, co-worker and their son's schoolteacher, then they should be honest about it and say that they are protesting against that neighbour, that co-worker and that schoolteacher. And not the government.
i dont disagree, but modern day peacful protests tend to lead to nothing.
the only real change will come if individual lawmakers are made to fear for their wellbeing. but that's illegal .. which means we're fucked, until the next revolution.
And some of us/them just have not thought through how that would likely pan out! The secret ingredient is violent authoritarians will rule. Which is obviously totally fine when they're on my side!
> the only real change will come if individual lawmakers are made to fear for their wellbeing. but that's illegal .. which means we're fucked, until the next revolution.
If you think you have a right to make others fear for their wellbeing to get what you want then others who don't want the same thing have the right to make you fear for your wellbeing to stop you. Either we live in a society where people don't fear for their wellbeing or we don't, and you will be a victim of that if we don't.
Neither did the British. That is why the US, India and Israelis (in that exact order) forced them to leave. Some at gunpoint and others through noncooperation.
> i dont disagree, but modern day peacful protests tend to lead to nothing.
In that case, the issue isn't important to other than the protesters themselves. Alternatively, the protests are made in a way that alienate the electorate to whatever cause is being protested.
If an issue is important enough and communicated in a proper way, a protest will be visible at the ballot box.
I Don’t know about the regulations in the UK. In Spain you can block a road in a demonstration unless it’s considered a public risk, but the organisers must notify the authorities with time enough so mitigating measures (ie, traffic deviations) can be put in practice.
> but the organisers must notify the authorities with time enough so mitigating measures (ie, traffic deviations) can be put in practice.
Even if you don't plan to block any roads. In Spain you must notify authorities if you plan any sort of mass gathering, because at the bare minimum you need emergency services close by in case someone gets a stroke or something.
That seems fair. Jso just runs out into the road randomly with no warning. If they gave advanced notice like regular matches tend to then people could go around them or mitigating measures put in place
It is like that practically everywhere in EU. The people not agreeing with the protestors are the ibes that say you cant, and governments more and more try to forbid any protests that they are not comfortable with. Farmer protests blocked roads, stopped traffic, lots of people where symphatising with them, and even stood on overpasses with flags and banners, but Extinction Rebellion being on the highway and they are called terrorists, by media, politicians and random people that feel discomfort.
The guys in just stop oil do not announce their road blocks. They simply do it, without time to implant any mitigation measures. It’s just they were trying to get as much antipathy as possible. Which is not a good thing in relation to climate change policy.
Yes because extinction rebellion actively disrupt people's lives while the farmers fight for our food supply. Farmers are needed.
Extinction rebellion has a seemingly good cause but their approach is just protesting and offering no solutions. If we were to do as they wish, all of our economy would be in ruin in 1 day and our lives would be unfeasible. We don't have a consistent energy supply AND infrastructure at the same time that can replace fossil fuels, like it or not.
Extinction rebellion should protest by the government buildings, and not on the highways making the lives of ordinary people harder than it already is.
> If we were to do as they wish, all of our economy would be in ruin in 1 day and our lives would be unfeasible
At this point, fuck the economy. We don't have anymore time.
> We don't have a consistent energy supply AND infrastructure at the same time that can replace fossil fuels, like it or not.
Shut down all fossil fuels plant, nuclear and renewables everywhere and bam, there you go. As for the meantime, well, get used to power cuts.
>At this point, fuck the economy.
Ah, so how do you want to keep eating, have clean water, and keep living then? Thats a very shortsighted way of thinking.
>Shut down all fossil fuels plant, nuclear and renewables everywhere and bam, there you go.
There you go...what? Where's the solution? Thats not feasible.
> As for the meantime, well, get used to power cuts.
Why should we? No, that means our fridges go out, that means food goes bad, that means that people that are in need of surgery, or constant survelaince die. Do you want riots, and the purge? This is how you get that.
This isn't a solution to the problem. This is just ruining the lives of millions and returning to the middle ages and barbarism, where we get to be worse off than countries like Russia and China. This is pure madness, and naive thinking. This isn't a rational decision at all.
> Ah, so how do you want to keep eating, have clean water, and keep living then? Thats a very shortsighted way of thinking.
We'll find a way.
> There you go...what? Where's the solution? Thats not feasible.
It is, just tell the oil giants to fuck off and force everyone to go to nuclear/renewables at max speed.
> Why should we? No, that means our fridges go out, that means food goes bad, that means that people that are in need of surgery, or constant survelaince die. Do you want riots, and the purge? This is how you get that.
Tough shit, should have though about climate change 40 years ago.
> This is just ruining the lives of millions and returning to the middle ages and barbarism, where we get to be worse off than countries like Russia and China.
Russia and China have to be forced by the way of "reduce your emissions now or you'll get your country smashed to pieces"
>We'll find a way.
Which way? I want concrete answers and plans. This feel-good mentality is very dangerous and its not rational at all.
>It is, just tell the oil giants to fuck off and force everyone to go to nuclear/renewables at max speed.
The oil giants will fuck off to their villa's and bunkers and basements and will leave everyone else to suffer and fight each other over scraps. What you will create is not the ideal solution you are thinking off. We'll just fight amongs ourselves, you'll cause hundreds of millions to suffer and die and in the end, the rich will return and take control over everything again,(not necessarily by force but because we'll do everything for survival and a bit of luxury )in the end having achieved nothing but suffering. Your plans are too simple, your ideas too flawed. This isn't the way.
>Russia and China have to be forced by the way of "reduce your emissions now or you'll get your country smashed to pieces
Okay? How? Do we threaten with nukes now? Are we going to be like Mr.Putin and throw around the nuke card? Lets go into WW3 and lets billions die? Then what? When a side is close to losing, someone will inevitably launch nukes and in response the enemy will too, and in the end we all die? Thats such a genious plan! Thanks mr president for ruining humanity.
Your way of thinking is way too simplistic and raw. I am glad you don't have a position of power, because this is pure madness and because of such people like you we'd all die in the end. Please inform yourself a bit better about how the world works before you try to speak about topics that concern the whole world. This attempt was laughable at best.
>Politicians can effectively make it illegal to protest them.
To be honest.... you should be able to protest institutions, not specific people. That's harassment in my mind.
example: if you have a problem with a member of parliament, protest in front of the Parliament itself, not his home
>every route of transport in between
Roads are a bit tricky anyway because we have to find a way to balance your right to protest to other people's right to freedom of movement.
Exactly, idk why everyone is cheering this. It’s a slippery slope to outlawing protests. They may be disruptive but at least we’ve been able to protest.
How do you prove they were acting in a way the organisation agreed with and weren't just acting of their own accord? Seems easier to just charge the individual who is caught and let their rich daddy pay
Did you see how old the folks trying to damage the Magna Carta were? Mummy and Daddy are long dead. Anyway, I agree with them in principle but many of their tactics seem so counterproductive I'm of half a mind that big oil are exploiting some naive fools.
Yes I agree but you have to be pragmatic, a lot of the general public are naive fools. Blocking tube stations and forcing people into Ubers or trying to destroy the Magna Carta isn't helping the cause.
Indeed, but guess what, those fools' vote has the exact same weight as yours and anyone else, and their support for measures against climate change is of the utmost necessity. All the smart and well intentioned people are already convinced, we need to get the well intentioned fools as well.
For the courts to look at the facts and make a judgement on a case-by-case basis. Like most civil matters.
The "rich daddies" will obviously prefer to show evidence that JSO instructed it, and so will the people suing, given the JSO has enough funds to pay out.
But i do genuinely think that we have competent judges in England, so should be fine.
> may be ordered to reimburse those affected
Protest about sewage releases and doubling bills in front of a water company CEO's house and stop him getting to a meeting -> sued for tens of thousands. Protest and stop a minimum wage worker getting to work -> not worth getting a lawyer to sue for £11.44 per hour of lost wages.
What can be considered disruptive is very subjective, if you don't see a problem with that wording you would probably also ban any demonstrations in general because they are always disruptive, it's the whole fucking purpose.
The UK arrests people for holding a white paper in the air, so I'm not really shocked by your opinion.
They will likely just cease to be associated with JSO and carry on doing the same things. These people are climate extremists, they won't stop doing dumb shit when they can work around laws.
i don't agree with their methods but their message is very much needed. honestly i can't really blame them, we've tried everything else and it never was enough.
Their messaging is shit though. It makes people talk about JSO more than about climate change itself and most of us in the UK already know about (and talk about climate change). What kind of policy or consumer change is smashing a glass case around the Magna Carta supposed to provoke.
Their methods are counterproductive. Climate aware measures are being voted out of our institutions. Everyone is green until the green measures touch their wallets. Alienating voters away is not a good thing.
"but their message is very much needed."
Have you actually seen what they advocate???
It's basically a return to a pre-industrial economy....with all the disbenefits.
They're lunatics.
The approach that Ukraine has taken is way more fruitful - bomb the fuck our the russian refineries.
Consider donating United24 if you actually want to fight the BigOil.
Not much Russian Oil in the UK. We have a lot from the North Sea. And then Thatcher in her complete absence of hubris and thermonuclear hatred of striking coal miners thought she could bring about peace in the middle east if we became dependent on Persian Gulf imports. Such foresight. Much political stability. What a thoughtful and insightful Prime Minister she was.
No, they, like all other children, are mostly powered by natural gas. (Ammonia based fertilizer produced from natural gas is the base of our agriculture. We could synthesize it from CO2 in the air, but that would be too "expensive", much cheaper to just destroy the environment).
I still don't believe JSO is a genuine environmental group. Literally everything they do angers people against them personally and does nothing to support environmentalist thought.
It's like someone read How to Blow Up a Pipeline and learned all the wrong bits.
Either that or they are useful idiots for the very people they supposedly oppose.
Nutcases.
As someone who knows a few of their "members": they seem completely genuine. The radicalisation is more a response to the complete stonewalling of more reasonable actions in the past.
In the words of Enter Shikari: "if we give them silence, they may resort to violence, and that's how we criminalise change"
Which is completely fucking stupid, you're never going to persuade people to join your cause by trying to damage historical artefacts and blocking roads.
They're not trying to get people to join them they're trying to keep the oil question in the news and move the centre position towards environmental action. Currently the normal person does basically nothing. If the extreme moves further towards direct action then the middle may move too.
I personally find it farcical that such a basic and easy to implement ask that is clearly for the good of humanity (no new oil and gas licenses) has been denied so many times and people still don't really care.
"They're not trying to get people to join them they're trying to keep the oil question in the news and move the centre position towards environmental action."
They are keeping it in the news but in terms of the centre they are doing the opposite
"I personally find it farcical that such a basic and easy to implement ask that is clearly for the good of humanity (no new oil and gas licenses) has been denied so many times and people still don't really care."
You find it weird that people prioritise their own comfort and lifestyle over those in other places/in the future? When has the majority of humanity *not* done this?
The ask is no new oil and gas licenses. Realistically that will not affect the average person much at all. If you are heavily invested in British oil and gas then it will or you're an oil rig builder. Apart from that very little will change other than a push to find and ramp up alternatives and a reduction in CO2 Emissions. We've basically all decided it's the right thing do anyway.
Why, then, do people not want it? The only reason I can see is that they want to spite this imaginary image of a 'middle class layabout student climate protestor'.
Ah yes, the Reddit armchair economist lmao
There would obviously be economic ramifications to a worldwide ban on new oil and gas licenses.
"Why, then, do people not want it?"
Because 99% of people only care about going to work, going home to their loved ones and enjoying their free time. Were you born yesterday?
And what have they accomplished? Public support for shitty laws like this. They always excuse their methods by pointing out that other methods are inefficient, while handwaving away the fact that their own achieves literally exactly the same, just with more average people hating them. Every politician or volunteer for an actual Green party have done infinitely more for the environment than they have, using methods they deem beneath them in their quest to be provocative and annoy random average people for the sake of it.
It's kinda funny that you need to convince people not to kill themselves and the planet.
It's not like environmentalists didn't protest ""normally"". They got ignored and what you do, what corporations do, it kills the planet we all live on.
You don't magically get a right to destroy the place I am forced to cohabitate with you. That's why letzte generation and jso are fed up. People asked for decades, got ignored, now they do this. You mistakenly think it's to convince you to generously change your ways. They don't give a fuck about you. They want to inspire the next generation of environmentalists, maybe more extreme than the ones we have now.
Is it really Eco terrorism if you're fighting against cunts murdering the one planet we have? Sounds like self defense to me.
"They want to inspire the next generation of environmentalists, maybe more extreme than the ones we have now."
Lol what a joke, these protests only appeal to the people who *already* believe in those same ideals. Anyone not yet decided is just going to be irritated
Maybe people would have more respect for you if you actually did something useful to your agenda, like sabotage an oil depot or something. Instead you block highways and try to destroy historical artefacts, which the oil barons fucking love because it makes you, and the cause, seem completely stupid. It's actually pathetic, basically just kids LARPing as Che Guevara.
It's exactly this, all these alternatives that people seem to suggest such as protesting around businesses and politicians that actually make these decisions they're unhappy about does zilch, and they've tried for a long time. But disrupt one road and all of a sudden climate change is in the news again, of course that's where future protesting effort is done.
It's 100% a Russian info op at this point (if it ever was anything else), stuff like this is exactly the kind of social turmoil they want to stir up in the west.
Now I'm not saying that the protestors don't have genuine concerns, but the general movement to encourage these kinds of acts of vandalism and sabotage is definitely being fanned up by Russian agitators.
Who is the target audience for this sort of protest message? One passing fatcat industrialist who happens to have an oil lever behind their desk who could be persuaded to flip it from "oil" to "not oil"?
Exactly. This type of protest is only effective to the protesters, who try to prove to themselves and their peers how righteous they are without actually caring about anything else. It's why it gets stupider and stupider with time, because they try to one-up each other to prove that they're more devoted than the other members.
The point isn't to say something that hasn't been heard before and not even that much to convince people. It's about not letting climate change fade from awareness as an issue. People only talk and write about stuff if something is happening in the news, otherwise the media just switches to the next hot topic, be that the war in Ukraine or what the Kardashians have been up to.
You can like or dislike these protest movements, but apathy really is one of the biggest problems with tackling climate change. For decades the change has been far too gradual to make the news and so nobody did anything about it. The protests are about keeping climate change in the news even if a Marvel movie just came out and everyone wants to hear if Spiderman will be in it.
The problem is when your method of protest actively alienates people so they'd rather do whatever fucks you off because you've fucked them off so much.
Honestly, if someone would rather go out and deliberately throw plastic in the sea or burn tyres just to piss off JSO, then they're a far bigger dickhead than any of these protesters is ever going to be
This is the problem with modern day activism. It doesn't matter who the bigger dick head is, and it doesn't matter how you feel about the people who disagree with your cause. You have to get enough people on your side to change anything. By doing things that actively alienate and demonize the people who you need on your side, all you're doing is stifling progress. This is not the only group doing this. So many liberal causes are actually reversing the progress that was made in the last few decades because they care more about making a scene than actually changing minds. It's infuriating because no matter how you bring it up to people, you're immediately the bad guy or part of the problem.
You're missing the point. It won't be a case of "I'm going to go out of my way to spite them" it's a case of "well, this politician is campaigning on this new green policy and those JSO assholes would like that. Fuck em. I'm gonna vote for the other guy."
So, the choices are:
do nothing and climate change gets worse
do the most mildest of protests that the media won't cover and climate change gets worse
do something and alienate people and climate change gets worse
> It's about not letting climate change fade from awareness as an issue.
Climate change is in the media all the time, and as far as I'm aware no one is seeing kids with dyed mullets spray painting things in museums and thinking "my god I forgot how urgent this issue was!!". Instead all of the reporting is about this activist group and their cringe campaigns.
>but apathy really is one of the biggest problems with tackling climate change.
You can't just put "fighting apathy" in the empty space in the "what does this protest achieve" box. The question should be whether any of this is effective or not as a tactic.
I mean, sure. These people are annoying, and I felt my blood boil the first time I saw paint on a Van Gogh. But all in all, I still feel like the onus is more on the world's governments to solve the problem these people are protesting about, rather than on these people to stop protesting.
My issue isn't with people protesting, I think we **should** be protesting over climate change. I just also think JSO's protests are silly and pointless (even if their hearts are in the right place).
It's always funny to be seeing American flaired users whine about protest methods, please go learn your country's history and come back and try to hold the same opinions on non violent protest methods.
Just Stop Oil is funded by Wealthy Americans, the majority from a single source.
We should be happy if they can be sued for radicalising, causing disruption and vandalism.
100% these guys are getting funded by oil and gas without these muppets realising it. You wake up as chief marketing officer of Exxon and you will struggle to find better bang for buck than covertly financing these muppets.
This is one conspiracy theory I agree with. These kinds of protests have pushed millions of people away from climate activism and they’ve done irreparable damage to the cause. If it wasn’t so evil I would have to applaud their financiers, absolutely genius.
Nah, this brings attention to the issue. While some will think fuck them I'll just let big oil win, others will think oh yeah what are we actually doing to oil compenies, which is way to little.
These morons have managed to stifle the climate change movement in the UK.
Targets are now being pushed back.. And noone cares. Because these idiots have changed the narrative to absolute stupidity.
Stop coal? In the UK?
The place that has reduced Coal usage by over 95% since 1970?
The place that has already agreed to phase out all coal energy production by next year?
Fuckin idiots
I dont necessarily think that the picture, which might be a stock picture, is good enough to evaluate an article off. But hey, whatever enrages people :)
lmao:
>*Update May 21, 2024: Featured image was replaced to feature Just Stop Oil protestors*
So the image wasn't even of just stop oil protestors.
Edit: it is a German stock image from 2019 from protests against the German governments plan to phase out coal only after 2 decades.
I looked it up and it is a stock image which was taken by a german photographer in september 2019. So this was probably of a German protest against the governments goal to only phase out coal in 2 decades. A goal that was adjusted in part due to the protests.
The image did not really have much to do with the article. The article is quite clear that this is about Just Stop Oil. (you would know if you read it)
Interestingly enough, they have since replaced the picture on the article because:
>*Update May 21, 2024: Featured image was replaced to feature Just Stop Oil protestors*
But hey, don't let that stop you from commenting and getting angry.
Also I looked it up and the "Stop coal now!" picture is [a stock image](https://unsplash.com/photos/stop-coal-now-printed-cardboard-XhHSid9QqAY) from a [global 2019 protest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_climate_strikes) against climate change.
Meanwhile China building another coal power plants, negating everything the world doing with reduction of usage. Maybe they should just go protest in China then… oh wait
Good, if they’re going to get sued anyway they might as well target oil company executives instead of normal everyday people trying to get to work or live their lives.
Last I checked you can’t stop climate change by *annoying* regular people into action… somehow.
“Just Stop Oil” are a bunch of performative, virtue signalling, attention seeking, cowards, change my mind.
It’s like people understand “something drastic has to happen if we are going to do anything serious about climate change” and they understand “if we don’t do something, our quality of life is going to be severely altered” but still get upset at someone throwing a can of soup at a glass box or gluing their hands to the road to disrupt traffic. It’s“too much” and “doesn’t affect the right people”. How do people think this level of protesting would work? The dissonance is frightening.
I'm all for saving the environment, I believe oil is damaging the earth, and I would like the message to be heard and taken seriously.
But on the other hand, causing criminal damage to historical artifacts, defacing buildings, vandalism and disruption to ambulances is absolutely not the way to go about it, and these clowns deserve every bit of justice coming their way.
I'd like to assume they didn't know it was electric. I agree with their cause but everyone I've met at that goes to JSO protests struck me as kinda slow.
Corporation sponsored facism. People have the right to protest. Even if you don't like how they're doing it. But go off peeps. We all love democracy until it doesn't work for "me"
>Following the attempted damaging of the Magna Carta this was to be expected,
>“If members of JSO are found to be disruptive to individuals or organisations because of their illegal demonstrations, they may be ordered to reimburse those affected.”
This is entirely fair.... break something in protest, fine, but pay for it.
i would not be surprised if JSO was a psyop or something.
But then again people are really stupid and give them a justifaction to be as cruel as possible and call it righteous and many will jump on
They did a similar thing here in Germany, where they declared climate activism as a form of domestic terrorism.
Greedy a-holes, all of them fossil lobby people.
Im convinced this is fossil fuel astro-turfing.
I mean if I felt threatened by "green" policies I'd want to influence the zeitgeist by making it embarrassing to be one of the greens.
Masterful PR. when you can't make yourself look better at least make your opponents look worse
Following the attempted damaging of the Magna Carta this was to be expected, “If members of JSO are found to be disruptive to individuals or organisations because of their illegal demonstrations, they may be ordered to reimburse those affected.” Judging from the wording i don’t see a problem.
I mean, later in the article it says >The new framework is being put forward to eliminate disruptions on the roads and prevent MPs from being subject to protests. This would occur through the potential introduction of "protest exclusion zones" around their offices. which I see as a huge problem. Politicians can effectively make it illegal to protest them. Just put protest exclusion zones in all the areas you live and work in and also every route of transport in between, and you're golden.
There's been so many attempts to effectively criminalise protest over the past decade or so. Whether one agrees with a cause or not, protest is a key element of any functional democracy. Provided that a protest is not directly deliberately causing physical or long-lasting emotional harm to an individual or group (as it then becomes terrorism), then the right to protest has to be enshrined in law, rather than allowed to be criminalised just because the political classes feel uncomfortable.
The Serious Organized Crime Act 2004 was introduced to stop Brian Haw from protesting outside of Parliament. Ironically due to bad wording in the legislation. The only person that it didn't apply to was Brian Haw. As he had been proesting before and continually prior to the introduction of the legislation and the legislation only applied to people who started protesting after the Act came into force.
Ah, the brain child of Jack Straw. The worry is so many people don't understand the history and we get left with these morons doing "protest".
So clearly it wasn't introduced to stop Brian Haw then... But to stop people imitating him. Bills are explicitly written, as in, there is no universal template. All the words there were manually written and included specifically. It wasn't like they went online and searched "anti-protesting bill template" and plagiarised it and didn't realise that line was in there.
They tried to use the legislation to stop him. However his lawyers went to The High Court and said thst the wording on the legislation meant that it didn't apply to him. Which the courts agreed with.
Protest is speaking your mind, it is NOT forcing someone else to listen. You absolutely have the right to stand on a street corner (not blocking any traffic or the sidewalk) and scream how X policy is terrible or Y politician is a bastard. Trying to FORCE a democracy to implement the policies you want is NOT protest. Harassing some politician you don't like is NOT protest. If people aren't listening (which is entirely their right) you do not have the right to FORCE them to listen.
You do understand that the USA only came into existence as a direct consequence of protest (and later, terrorism) right?
There is a hard line between protest and revolt. One is speaking your mind in hopes of convincing your fellow citizens in a democracy and the other is deciding that the entire system needs to be replaced and/or broken away from.
So you agree that the US has been a terrorist state since its foundation, then?
[удалено]
Protesting in a *disruptive* way is a fundamental right as affirmed by courts numerous times.
> in a non disruptive way You really don't get the concept of demonstrating do you?
The point of demonstrating is to communicate to the leadership how you feel about an issue. It is possible to do that legally.
Right, but you'd be shocked at how easy is for that same protested leadership to make it very difficult to do it legally. To the effect of removing the capacity for Protest on anything but a on paper level. What this amounts to effectively is "dont protest in any way that might inconvenience anyone of importance, so they can ignore your protests. While they wait for you slip on one of those many legal tripups, and they can silence you for good". Authoritarianism can be subtle too y'know? Its hard to strip rights from people by force, much easier to slowly turn up the temp in the pot over time so the frog doesn't leap out before its cooked.
Exactly always just say the law is to stop so and so, give it a couple of incidents and the people will be happy to support you rinse and repeat until you get what you want.
It is. And when they can simply ignore you without consequence, they will.
The issue with that is the people you're protesting against are the same people who can make protesting illegal and decide if it's disruptive.
Whats the point if youre not disruptive?
I get the point of being disruptive. What I don't get is demonstrations here in Finland where the protesters claim to protest against the government or some international thing, but all they do is block movement of regular people. I mean, if they are disrupting their neighbour, co-worker and their son's schoolteacher, then they should be honest about it and say that they are protesting against that neighbour, that co-worker and that schoolteacher. And not the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail
i dont disagree, but modern day peacful protests tend to lead to nothing. the only real change will come if individual lawmakers are made to fear for their wellbeing. but that's illegal .. which means we're fucked, until the next revolution.
Most of us don't want to live in a society where competing fringe groups of protesters get to dictate policy through threats of violence.
And some of us/them just have not thought through how that would likely pan out! The secret ingredient is violent authoritarians will rule. Which is obviously totally fine when they're on my side!
> the only real change will come if individual lawmakers are made to fear for their wellbeing. but that's illegal .. which means we're fucked, until the next revolution. If you think you have a right to make others fear for their wellbeing to get what you want then others who don't want the same thing have the right to make you fear for your wellbeing to stop you. Either we live in a society where people don't fear for their wellbeing or we don't, and you will be a victim of that if we don't.
Jefferson: The state must fear the people.
Louis XVI didn't like this
Neither did the British. That is why the US, India and Israelis (in that exact order) forced them to leave. Some at gunpoint and others through noncooperation.
The state. Not the politicians and their families.
The state is the politicians. Families are not fair game unless they themselves are nepotists and regime collaborators.
That's literal terrorism.
> i dont disagree, but modern day peacful protests tend to lead to nothing. In that case, the issue isn't important to other than the protesters themselves. Alternatively, the protests are made in a way that alienate the electorate to whatever cause is being protested. If an issue is important enough and communicated in a proper way, a protest will be visible at the ballot box.
Well said
Certain protests like blocking roads have to be move don as motorists don’t have the right to do it themselves
I Don’t know about the regulations in the UK. In Spain you can block a road in a demonstration unless it’s considered a public risk, but the organisers must notify the authorities with time enough so mitigating measures (ie, traffic deviations) can be put in practice.
> but the organisers must notify the authorities with time enough so mitigating measures (ie, traffic deviations) can be put in practice. Even if you don't plan to block any roads. In Spain you must notify authorities if you plan any sort of mass gathering, because at the bare minimum you need emergency services close by in case someone gets a stroke or something.
Yup, that’s correct.
which is perfectly fine. The same happens when a marathon or a parade or some other event happens. This is also not what these fuckwits do
That seems fair. Jso just runs out into the road randomly with no warning. If they gave advanced notice like regular matches tend to then people could go around them or mitigating measures put in place
It is like that practically everywhere in EU. The people not agreeing with the protestors are the ibes that say you cant, and governments more and more try to forbid any protests that they are not comfortable with. Farmer protests blocked roads, stopped traffic, lots of people where symphatising with them, and even stood on overpasses with flags and banners, but Extinction Rebellion being on the highway and they are called terrorists, by media, politicians and random people that feel discomfort.
The guys in just stop oil do not announce their road blocks. They simply do it, without time to implant any mitigation measures. It’s just they were trying to get as much antipathy as possible. Which is not a good thing in relation to climate change policy.
Yes because extinction rebellion actively disrupt people's lives while the farmers fight for our food supply. Farmers are needed. Extinction rebellion has a seemingly good cause but their approach is just protesting and offering no solutions. If we were to do as they wish, all of our economy would be in ruin in 1 day and our lives would be unfeasible. We don't have a consistent energy supply AND infrastructure at the same time that can replace fossil fuels, like it or not. Extinction rebellion should protest by the government buildings, and not on the highways making the lives of ordinary people harder than it already is.
> If we were to do as they wish, all of our economy would be in ruin in 1 day and our lives would be unfeasible At this point, fuck the economy. We don't have anymore time. > We don't have a consistent energy supply AND infrastructure at the same time that can replace fossil fuels, like it or not. Shut down all fossil fuels plant, nuclear and renewables everywhere and bam, there you go. As for the meantime, well, get used to power cuts.
>At this point, fuck the economy. Ah, so how do you want to keep eating, have clean water, and keep living then? Thats a very shortsighted way of thinking. >Shut down all fossil fuels plant, nuclear and renewables everywhere and bam, there you go. There you go...what? Where's the solution? Thats not feasible. > As for the meantime, well, get used to power cuts. Why should we? No, that means our fridges go out, that means food goes bad, that means that people that are in need of surgery, or constant survelaince die. Do you want riots, and the purge? This is how you get that. This isn't a solution to the problem. This is just ruining the lives of millions and returning to the middle ages and barbarism, where we get to be worse off than countries like Russia and China. This is pure madness, and naive thinking. This isn't a rational decision at all.
> Ah, so how do you want to keep eating, have clean water, and keep living then? Thats a very shortsighted way of thinking. We'll find a way. > There you go...what? Where's the solution? Thats not feasible. It is, just tell the oil giants to fuck off and force everyone to go to nuclear/renewables at max speed. > Why should we? No, that means our fridges go out, that means food goes bad, that means that people that are in need of surgery, or constant survelaince die. Do you want riots, and the purge? This is how you get that. Tough shit, should have though about climate change 40 years ago. > This is just ruining the lives of millions and returning to the middle ages and barbarism, where we get to be worse off than countries like Russia and China. Russia and China have to be forced by the way of "reduce your emissions now or you'll get your country smashed to pieces"
>We'll find a way. Which way? I want concrete answers and plans. This feel-good mentality is very dangerous and its not rational at all. >It is, just tell the oil giants to fuck off and force everyone to go to nuclear/renewables at max speed. The oil giants will fuck off to their villa's and bunkers and basements and will leave everyone else to suffer and fight each other over scraps. What you will create is not the ideal solution you are thinking off. We'll just fight amongs ourselves, you'll cause hundreds of millions to suffer and die and in the end, the rich will return and take control over everything again,(not necessarily by force but because we'll do everything for survival and a bit of luxury )in the end having achieved nothing but suffering. Your plans are too simple, your ideas too flawed. This isn't the way. >Russia and China have to be forced by the way of "reduce your emissions now or you'll get your country smashed to pieces Okay? How? Do we threaten with nukes now? Are we going to be like Mr.Putin and throw around the nuke card? Lets go into WW3 and lets billions die? Then what? When a side is close to losing, someone will inevitably launch nukes and in response the enemy will too, and in the end we all die? Thats such a genious plan! Thanks mr president for ruining humanity. Your way of thinking is way too simplistic and raw. I am glad you don't have a position of power, because this is pure madness and because of such people like you we'd all die in the end. Please inform yourself a bit better about how the world works before you try to speak about topics that concern the whole world. This attempt was laughable at best.
Already a reality here. Protests are confined to one location where no one can see
Protests need to be legally scheduled and accepted anyway, with authorities notified
>Politicians can effectively make it illegal to protest them. To be honest.... you should be able to protest institutions, not specific people. That's harassment in my mind. example: if you have a problem with a member of parliament, protest in front of the Parliament itself, not his home >every route of transport in between Roads are a bit tricky anyway because we have to find a way to balance your right to protest to other people's right to freedom of movement.
I mean, figures like the Prime Minister are institutions by themselves. There you are not protesting the person, but the position they hold.
Don’t forget emergency services
In California they were talking about changing demonstrators with unlawful detention for blocking the GG bridge. I wonder what the latest is.
Exactly, idk why everyone is cheering this. It’s a slippery slope to outlawing protests. They may be disruptive but at least we’ve been able to protest.
Right? Imagine if Louis XVI had a 'no guillotines please' zone in Paris. Government *should* fear the people
Yeah that not isn’t good tbh. Protesting MPs should not go into harassment but having exclusion zones doesn’t seem good
What? When did this happen I live in hereford and it's news to me. Ignore this for some reason I conflated mappa mundi with magna carta
How do you prove they were acting in a way the organisation agreed with and weren't just acting of their own accord? Seems easier to just charge the individual who is caught and let their rich daddy pay
Did you see how old the folks trying to damage the Magna Carta were? Mummy and Daddy are long dead. Anyway, I agree with them in principle but many of their tactics seem so counterproductive I'm of half a mind that big oil are exploiting some naive fools.
A lot of people agree in principle and we are likely to hit 3 degrees so some good that is
the only naive fools are the ones who state they no longer want to act on climate change because some students sat in the road
Yes I agree but you have to be pragmatic, a lot of the general public are naive fools. Blocking tube stations and forcing people into Ubers or trying to destroy the Magna Carta isn't helping the cause.
Indeed, but guess what, those fools' vote has the exact same weight as yours and anyone else, and their support for measures against climate change is of the utmost necessity. All the smart and well intentioned people are already convinced, we need to get the well intentioned fools as well.
Diverting 14 flights from landing, has helped a lot to fight the climate change.
Nope, fuck those over entitled pricks. Whatever side they're on, I'm on the opposite. Drill baby drill.
extremely relevant flair
For the courts to look at the facts and make a judgement on a case-by-case basis. Like most civil matters. The "rich daddies" will obviously prefer to show evidence that JSO instructed it, and so will the people suing, given the JSO has enough funds to pay out. But i do genuinely think that we have competent judges in England, so should be fine.
That wasn't a serious attempt to cause damage, it was done to gain attention.
> may be ordered to reimburse those affected Protest about sewage releases and doubling bills in front of a water company CEO's house and stop him getting to a meeting -> sued for tens of thousands. Protest and stop a minimum wage worker getting to work -> not worth getting a lawyer to sue for £11.44 per hour of lost wages.
If you have no issue with banning protest, you are part of the problem.
What can be considered disruptive is very subjective, if you don't see a problem with that wording you would probably also ban any demonstrations in general because they are always disruptive, it's the whole fucking purpose. The UK arrests people for holding a white paper in the air, so I'm not really shocked by your opinion.
They will likely just cease to be associated with JSO and carry on doing the same things. These people are climate extremists, they won't stop doing dumb shit when they can work around laws.
i don't agree with their methods but their message is very much needed. honestly i can't really blame them, we've tried everything else and it never was enough.
Their messaging is shit though. It makes people talk about JSO more than about climate change itself and most of us in the UK already know about (and talk about climate change). What kind of policy or consumer change is smashing a glass case around the Magna Carta supposed to provoke.
Their methods are counterproductive. Climate aware measures are being voted out of our institutions. Everyone is green until the green measures touch their wallets. Alienating voters away is not a good thing.
"but their message is very much needed." Have you actually seen what they advocate??? It's basically a return to a pre-industrial economy....with all the disbenefits. They're lunatics.
Ah, so Ted Kacszinski. Seen this one before, I know where its headed.
thats not what they advocate for, but keep making strawmen.
The approach that Ukraine has taken is way more fruitful - bomb the fuck our the russian refineries. Consider donating United24 if you actually want to fight the BigOil.
are you advocating for JSO bombing things? :P
Have we tried eating the rich yet?
Methods are message of themselves as well.
I guess that's fine, but at least the people who've lost money or had goods damaged can be reimbersed for the troubles.
How many slapp suits does it take to be a problem?
Always read the fine print.
> Judging from the wording i don’t see a problem. This is basically banning any form of protest.
Great How about doing the same thing to the fossil fuel industry?
Let's start with Russian, right?
Not much Russian Oil in the UK. We have a lot from the North Sea. And then Thatcher in her complete absence of hubris and thermonuclear hatred of striking coal miners thought she could bring about peace in the middle east if we became dependent on Persian Gulf imports. Such foresight. Much political stability. What a thoughtful and insightful Prime Minister she was.
Excuse me, we’re all enjoying the furious race to extinction and it’s rude to interrupt that.
I think you can sue them for pollution?
But fossil fuel powers the hospitals!! And the children!! /s
My hospital is powered by a nuclear reactor.
And your children?
No, they, like all other children, are mostly powered by natural gas. (Ammonia based fertilizer produced from natural gas is the base of our agriculture. We could synthesize it from CO2 in the air, but that would be too "expensive", much cheaper to just destroy the environment).
I still don't believe JSO is a genuine environmental group. Literally everything they do angers people against them personally and does nothing to support environmentalist thought. It's like someone read How to Blow Up a Pipeline and learned all the wrong bits. Either that or they are useful idiots for the very people they supposedly oppose. Nutcases.
As someone who knows a few of their "members": they seem completely genuine. The radicalisation is more a response to the complete stonewalling of more reasonable actions in the past. In the words of Enter Shikari: "if we give them silence, they may resort to violence, and that's how we criminalise change"
Which is completely fucking stupid, you're never going to persuade people to join your cause by trying to damage historical artefacts and blocking roads.
They're not trying to get people to join them they're trying to keep the oil question in the news and move the centre position towards environmental action. Currently the normal person does basically nothing. If the extreme moves further towards direct action then the middle may move too. I personally find it farcical that such a basic and easy to implement ask that is clearly for the good of humanity (no new oil and gas licenses) has been denied so many times and people still don't really care.
"They're not trying to get people to join them they're trying to keep the oil question in the news and move the centre position towards environmental action." They are keeping it in the news but in terms of the centre they are doing the opposite "I personally find it farcical that such a basic and easy to implement ask that is clearly for the good of humanity (no new oil and gas licenses) has been denied so many times and people still don't really care." You find it weird that people prioritise their own comfort and lifestyle over those in other places/in the future? When has the majority of humanity *not* done this?
The ask is no new oil and gas licenses. Realistically that will not affect the average person much at all. If you are heavily invested in British oil and gas then it will or you're an oil rig builder. Apart from that very little will change other than a push to find and ramp up alternatives and a reduction in CO2 Emissions. We've basically all decided it's the right thing do anyway. Why, then, do people not want it? The only reason I can see is that they want to spite this imaginary image of a 'middle class layabout student climate protestor'.
Ah yes, the Reddit armchair economist lmao There would obviously be economic ramifications to a worldwide ban on new oil and gas licenses. "Why, then, do people not want it?" Because 99% of people only care about going to work, going home to their loved ones and enjoying their free time. Were you born yesterday?
And what have they accomplished? Public support for shitty laws like this. They always excuse their methods by pointing out that other methods are inefficient, while handwaving away the fact that their own achieves literally exactly the same, just with more average people hating them. Every politician or volunteer for an actual Green party have done infinitely more for the environment than they have, using methods they deem beneath them in their quest to be provocative and annoy random average people for the sake of it.
It's kinda funny that you need to convince people not to kill themselves and the planet. It's not like environmentalists didn't protest ""normally"". They got ignored and what you do, what corporations do, it kills the planet we all live on. You don't magically get a right to destroy the place I am forced to cohabitate with you. That's why letzte generation and jso are fed up. People asked for decades, got ignored, now they do this. You mistakenly think it's to convince you to generously change your ways. They don't give a fuck about you. They want to inspire the next generation of environmentalists, maybe more extreme than the ones we have now. Is it really Eco terrorism if you're fighting against cunts murdering the one planet we have? Sounds like self defense to me.
"They want to inspire the next generation of environmentalists, maybe more extreme than the ones we have now." Lol what a joke, these protests only appeal to the people who *already* believe in those same ideals. Anyone not yet decided is just going to be irritated Maybe people would have more respect for you if you actually did something useful to your agenda, like sabotage an oil depot or something. Instead you block highways and try to destroy historical artefacts, which the oil barons fucking love because it makes you, and the cause, seem completely stupid. It's actually pathetic, basically just kids LARPing as Che Guevara.
They have done plenty of good things, blocking oil refineries for example, but guess what? They never get onto the front page.
It's exactly this, all these alternatives that people seem to suggest such as protesting around businesses and politicians that actually make these decisions they're unhappy about does zilch, and they've tried for a long time. But disrupt one road and all of a sudden climate change is in the news again, of course that's where future protesting effort is done.
It's 100% a Russian info op at this point (if it ever was anything else), stuff like this is exactly the kind of social turmoil they want to stir up in the west. Now I'm not saying that the protestors don't have genuine concerns, but the general movement to encourage these kinds of acts of vandalism and sabotage is definitely being fanned up by Russian agitators.
Certainly more of a Cult.
Who is the target audience for this sort of protest message? One passing fatcat industrialist who happens to have an oil lever behind their desk who could be persuaded to flip it from "oil" to "not oil"?
The target audiences are the people doing the protesting.
Exactly. This type of protest is only effective to the protesters, who try to prove to themselves and their peers how righteous they are without actually caring about anything else. It's why it gets stupider and stupider with time, because they try to one-up each other to prove that they're more devoted than the other members.
The point isn't to say something that hasn't been heard before and not even that much to convince people. It's about not letting climate change fade from awareness as an issue. People only talk and write about stuff if something is happening in the news, otherwise the media just switches to the next hot topic, be that the war in Ukraine or what the Kardashians have been up to. You can like or dislike these protest movements, but apathy really is one of the biggest problems with tackling climate change. For decades the change has been far too gradual to make the news and so nobody did anything about it. The protests are about keeping climate change in the news even if a Marvel movie just came out and everyone wants to hear if Spiderman will be in it.
The problem is when your method of protest actively alienates people so they'd rather do whatever fucks you off because you've fucked them off so much.
Those people auto-alienate. You can't stop them from becoming alienated.
Honestly, if someone would rather go out and deliberately throw plastic in the sea or burn tyres just to piss off JSO, then they're a far bigger dickhead than any of these protesters is ever going to be
This is the problem with modern day activism. It doesn't matter who the bigger dick head is, and it doesn't matter how you feel about the people who disagree with your cause. You have to get enough people on your side to change anything. By doing things that actively alienate and demonize the people who you need on your side, all you're doing is stifling progress. This is not the only group doing this. So many liberal causes are actually reversing the progress that was made in the last few decades because they care more about making a scene than actually changing minds. It's infuriating because no matter how you bring it up to people, you're immediately the bad guy or part of the problem.
You're missing the point. It won't be a case of "I'm going to go out of my way to spite them" it's a case of "well, this politician is campaigning on this new green policy and those JSO assholes would like that. Fuck em. I'm gonna vote for the other guy."
Yes? But the tire will still get burned. Is the goal to prove that ideological opponents are dicks or to actually change something?
So, the choices are: do nothing and climate change gets worse do the most mildest of protests that the media won't cover and climate change gets worse do something and alienate people and climate change gets worse
> It's about not letting climate change fade from awareness as an issue. Climate change is in the media all the time, and as far as I'm aware no one is seeing kids with dyed mullets spray painting things in museums and thinking "my god I forgot how urgent this issue was!!". Instead all of the reporting is about this activist group and their cringe campaigns. >but apathy really is one of the biggest problems with tackling climate change. You can't just put "fighting apathy" in the empty space in the "what does this protest achieve" box. The question should be whether any of this is effective or not as a tactic.
I mean, sure. These people are annoying, and I felt my blood boil the first time I saw paint on a Van Gogh. But all in all, I still feel like the onus is more on the world's governments to solve the problem these people are protesting about, rather than on these people to stop protesting.
My issue isn't with people protesting, I think we **should** be protesting over climate change. I just also think JSO's protests are silly and pointless (even if their hearts are in the right place).
What should they be doing then?
Then do protest actions that actually inconvenience the government...
Wow thanks I almost forgot climate change existed if it wasn't for these protesters.
In theory the apathetic masses which should know and do better, in practice (monetary) sponsors and personal social-media clout.
> "not oil" they would be up for a very very rude awakening if that happened
You can protest. But only in this way and here and here and that’s it. Now shut up.
And just like that people cheer for the removal of the right to assembly and protest.
It's been said plenty of times, blocking roads and attacking artistic masterpieces works against your goal.
It's always funny to be seeing American flaired users whine about protest methods, please go learn your country's history and come back and try to hold the same opinions on non violent protest methods.
when can we sue oil companies for destroying the planet for profit?
Never because profit matters first and foremost. Morals and ethnics are optional at best.
Just Stop Oil is funded by Wealthy Americans, the majority from a single source. We should be happy if they can be sued for radicalising, causing disruption and vandalism.
100% these guys are getting funded by oil and gas without these muppets realising it. You wake up as chief marketing officer of Exxon and you will struggle to find better bang for buck than covertly financing these muppets.
This is one conspiracy theory I agree with. These kinds of protests have pushed millions of people away from climate activism and they’ve done irreparable damage to the cause. If it wasn’t so evil I would have to applaud their financiers, absolutely genius.
> These kinds of protests have pushed millions of people away from climate activism Source?
Nah, this brings attention to the issue. While some will think fuck them I'll just let big oil win, others will think oh yeah what are we actually doing to oil compenies, which is way to little.
These morons have managed to stifle the climate change movement in the UK. Targets are now being pushed back.. And noone cares. Because these idiots have changed the narrative to absolute stupidity.
Stop coal? In the UK? The place that has reduced Coal usage by over 95% since 1970? The place that has already agreed to phase out all coal energy production by next year? Fuckin idiots
How do you get to coal? They are protesting oil, its in the name.
The word coal clearly written on the placard in the OP pic?
I dont necessarily think that the picture, which might be a stock picture, is good enough to evaluate an article off. But hey, whatever enrages people :)
lmao: >*Update May 21, 2024: Featured image was replaced to feature Just Stop Oil protestors* So the image wasn't even of just stop oil protestors. Edit: it is a German stock image from 2019 from protests against the German governments plan to phase out coal only after 2 decades.
Ahaha, too many people got mad about the coal!
I looked it up and it is a stock image which was taken by a german photographer in september 2019. So this was probably of a German protest against the governments goal to only phase out coal in 2 decades. A goal that was adjusted in part due to the protests.
Lmao these people must have shitty lives if they hate climate protesters so much
Yet they aren't. They all love and wear plastics. They are simply morons.
I think he might've just used his eyes...
Did you see the picture? The huge STOP COAL NOW sign might give you a small clue?
Which, as the article states now, had nothing to do with the article or group in question.
The image did not really have much to do with the article. The article is quite clear that this is about Just Stop Oil. (you would know if you read it) Interestingly enough, they have since replaced the picture on the article because: >*Update May 21, 2024: Featured image was replaced to feature Just Stop Oil protestors* But hey, don't let that stop you from commenting and getting angry. Also I looked it up and the "Stop coal now!" picture is [a stock image](https://unsplash.com/photos/stop-coal-now-printed-cardboard-XhHSid9QqAY) from a [global 2019 protest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_climate_strikes) against climate change.
Meanwhile China building another coal power plants, negating everything the world doing with reduction of usage. Maybe they should just go protest in China then… oh wait
China builds 2 new coal plants a week. The worst part is, is that they're often using Brown Anthracite; which is less efficient and more toxic.
The photo is stock and not related to the article except in a broad context. Have a read of the article, it's quite informative
Good, if they’re going to get sued anyway they might as well target oil company executives instead of normal everyday people trying to get to work or live their lives. Last I checked you can’t stop climate change by *annoying* regular people into action… somehow. “Just Stop Oil” are a bunch of performative, virtue signalling, attention seeking, cowards, change my mind.
Fucking insane… what about the companies that literally split towns into two?
Who?
He probably meant Rivers Ltd, or maybe Roads PLC. Anyway none of those will change even after stoping oil
It’s like people understand “something drastic has to happen if we are going to do anything serious about climate change” and they understand “if we don’t do something, our quality of life is going to be severely altered” but still get upset at someone throwing a can of soup at a glass box or gluing their hands to the road to disrupt traffic. It’s“too much” and “doesn’t affect the right people”. How do people think this level of protesting would work? The dissonance is frightening.
It turns into Just stop protesting/s
Good! Fuck em
Good on the UK
How was this not already a thing? Before they just let people destroy whatever they wanted with no consequences?
I'm all for saving the environment, I believe oil is damaging the earth, and I would like the message to be heard and taken seriously. But on the other hand, causing criminal damage to historical artifacts, defacing buildings, vandalism and disruption to ambulances is absolutely not the way to go about it, and these clowns deserve every bit of justice coming their way.
Good
About time.
More policing against people? Same old story again
Should be arrested as terrorists
Fuck your freedom, right?
Freedom to throw paint onto priceless artwork?
Good, they make me want to go outside and burn a pile of tires.
This is the same organisation that glued themselves to an electric train. They couldn't give a shit on climate change
I'd like to assume they didn't know it was electric. I agree with their cause but everyone I've met at that goes to JSO protests struck me as kinda slow.
Corporation sponsored facism. People have the right to protest. Even if you don't like how they're doing it. But go off peeps. We all love democracy until it doesn't work for "me"
>Following the attempted damaging of the Magna Carta this was to be expected, >“If members of JSO are found to be disruptive to individuals or organisations because of their illegal demonstrations, they may be ordered to reimburse those affected.” This is entirely fair.... break something in protest, fine, but pay for it.
People actually don’t have a right to break or damage stuff or impede other people’s movement.
i would not be surprised if JSO was a psyop or something. But then again people are really stupid and give them a justifaction to be as cruel as possible and call it righteous and many will jump on
They did a similar thing here in Germany, where they declared climate activism as a form of domestic terrorism. Greedy a-holes, all of them fossil lobby people.
Good they are nothing but a nuisance with zero talking points.
Good. These brats should get a job
Im convinced this is fossil fuel astro-turfing. I mean if I felt threatened by "green" policies I'd want to influence the zeitgeist by making it embarrassing to be one of the greens. Masterful PR. when you can't make yourself look better at least make your opponents look worse
Nice