A thread about protesters

Looking forward to lots of baton action by plod next time these dicks block the M25.
 
BobKowalski said:
You do.

Protests are designed to grab attention and piss people off. Some protests I agree with. Climate change, yes. Anti-vaxxers can die and preferably sooner rather than later and having statues for people who participated in mass murder is bizarre and they should be tossed in the nearest river. Or copy what they are doing in the US in removing statues of Confederate Generals who waged a war in defence of slavery.
Click to expand...
The Confederates did not wage a war in defence of slavery. It was a political war between 2 parties both of whom had slaves. The Confederates were richer (partly due to the amount of slaves) and did not want to join a united states thereby weakening their power.
Further you cannot say that Colston and others were wrong/bad etc. They were simply doing what was accepted at the time by many countries and had been for centuries, should we tear down the pyramids and the colloseum?
 
BlueMoonday said:
Wow, it says a lot about you that you are happy for an innocent person to die in an ambulance because some middle class tosser who has probably clocked up more air miles than any of us with trips to Bali and India suddenly decides to care about the environment. Nice ethics.
Click to expand...
Why are the protesters middle class ? How do you know they have clocked up all those air miles.?
A previous post said that one person was a care home worker, hardly fits your description.
 
Blue Mist said:
The Confederates did not wage a war in defence of slavery. It was a political war between 2 parties both of whom had slaves. The Confederates were richer (partly due to the amount of slaves) and did not want to join a united states thereby weakening their power.
Further you cannot say that Colston and others were wrong/bad etc. They were simply doing what was accepted at the time by many countries and had been for centuries, should we tear down the pyramids and the colloseum?
Click to expand...

The American Civil War was fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Confederate states said this explicitly. Mississippi stated:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

People at the time of Colston stated the slave trade was wrong. People campaigned to abolish the slave trade which was done in 1807. This idea no one at the time felt the slave trade was wrong is nonsense.
 
bluethrunthru said:
great move - create martyrs out of them. Also if they have been dumb enough to have had the in junction worded as to apply to the M25 only all other motorways remain open to action

www.bbc.co.uk

Insulate Britain: Injunction granted against M25 protesters

National Highways wins a High Court ruling against protesters who have been disrupting the M25.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Well the courts don't tend to grant wide ranging injunctions. Overly broad application of the law is traditionally viewed as the antithesis to natural justice.

It’s a relatively quick and straightforward hearing if they need to apply for another.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Well the courts don't tend to grant wide ranging injunctions. Overly broad application of the law is traditionally viewed as the antithesis to natural justice.

It’s a relatively quick and straightforward hearing if they need to apply for another.
Click to expand...

there are 50 + roads designated M roads thats without the A road dual carriageways................courts heavily back logged and busy prosecuting people traffickers under other new legislation....... great use of courts time.....
 
BobKowalski said:
The American Civil War was fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Confederate states said this explicitly. Mississippi stated:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

People at the time of Colston stated the slave trade was wrong. People campaigned to abolish the slave trade which was done in 1807. This idea no one at the time felt the slave trade was wrong is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Re Colston: I fully accept people were campaigning against it, that is not my point. The fact is the slave trade had gone on for thousands of years, at the time of Colston, ideas and beliefs were changing but it was still the accepted way. If we erase the history we do not like, we do not learn.
Re the American Civil War you have taken one statement and used it as your argument. That IMO is wrong. A free, non paid work force was always going to bring money and therefore power . The North wanted the power and the money the South had. They did not fight to free slaves they fought for power. The South did not fight to keep slavery, they fought to remain independent and wealthy.
 
bluethrunthru said:
there are 50 + roads designated M roads thats without the A road dual carriageways................courts heavily back logged and busy prosecuting people traffickers under other new legislation....... great use of courts time.....
Click to expand...

It’s a four page court order that can be copied and pasted and rubber stamped.

Do you think these people are more likely to breach the injunction anyway or travel around the UK as a merry band finding a highway that doesn't have an injunction but it is still illegal to obstruct?

It’s pretty broad already as it applies to persons unknown (you and me included most likely) and not just these specific groups.
 
Blue Mist said:
Re Colston: I fully accept people were campaigning against it, that is not my point. The fact is the slave trade had gone on for thousands of years, at the time of Colston, ideas and beliefs were changing but it was still the accepted way. If we erase the history we do not like, we do not learn.
Re the American Civil War you have taken one statement and used it as your argument. That IMO is wrong. A free, non paid work force was always going to bring money and therefore power . The North wanted the power and the money the South had. They did not fight to free slaves they fought for power. The South did not fight to keep slavery, they fought to remain independent and wealthy.
Click to expand...

Your argument is with Mississippi given they took the trouble to tell you why they decided to ultimately wage war.

Or Texas who published their reasons. Note the ‘should exist in all future time’. They meant slavery.

‘Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time’
 
Fode N The Hole said:
It’s a four page court order that can be copied and pasted and rubber stamped.

Do you think these people are more likely to breach the injunction anyway or travel around the UK as a merry band finding a highway that doesn't have an injunction but it is still illegal to obstruct?

It’s pretty broad already as it applies to persons unknown (you and me included most likely) and not just these specific groups.
Click to expand...

can't answer I am sat glued to and blocking the A66.....
 
Ancient Citizen said:
A woman has been airlifted to hospital with serious injuries
after a crash on the motorway blocked by these utter clowns.
On here, it's apparently everyone's 'Right' to facilitate dangerous situations that result in stunts like those being perpetrated by these self righteous idiots.
They are not stopping, as at present, they can only be held shortly, are bailed, then released, so far most of them have immediately returned to carry on their merry antics.
So, very soon, (we pray the poor lady in hospital recovers),
the discussion won't be around the semantics of the rights
and wrongs of demonstrations, it will be about manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Last year there were numerous protest around Town on a Saturday afternoon, one of which was on Portland Street where the protesters blocked the road. An old bloke remostrated with them asking them , what if the Fire Brigade or an Ambulance wanted to get through to which a student girl replied, "tough we won't be moving and they will not be getting passed here".
I can only assume that these M25 Protesters have the same train of thought.
 
BobKowalski said:
Your argument is with Mississippi given they took the trouble to tell you why they decided to ultimately wage war.

Or Texas who published their reasons. Note the ‘should exist in all future time’. They meant slavery.

‘Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time’
Click to expand...
I don't know why you keep copying and pasting articles from the Internet. The American Civil War was not about the abolition of slavery. It was about power and money. I fully accept the south believed in slavery but I repeat the north wanted the money and power the South had. They too had slaves but they knew if slavery was abolished they would gain the wealth and power. Abolishing slavery was just a means of getting that power not about any moral belief
 
Blue Mist said:
I don't know why you keep copying and pasting articles from the Internet. The American Civil War was not about the abolition of slavery. It was about power and money. I fully accept the south believed in slavery but I repeat the north wanted the money and power the South had. They too had slaves but they knew if slavery was abolished they would gain the wealth and power. Abolishing slavery was just a means of getting that power not about any moral belief
Click to expand...

I am posting ‘The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States’. They seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. We know this, and I can’t stress this enough, because the seceding States fucking said so. In writing.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
It’s a four page court order that can be copied and pasted and rubber stamped.

Do you think these people are more likely to breach the injunction anyway or travel around the UK as a merry band finding a highway that doesn't have an injunction but it is still illegal to obstruct?

It’s pretty broad already as it applies to persons unknown (you and me included most likely) and not just these specific groups.
Click to expand...
They need to avoid the roads round the Etihad. Blocking them wouldn’t slow drivers down. It’s impossible.
 
Get concerned about protesters thats so that you won't worry that your energy supplier is on the verge of collapse...
 
People have a right to protest, but they should not have a right to effectively blackmail the rest of society into doing what they want via their actions. Other democratic channels exist to change laws.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
People have a right to protest, but they should not have a right to effectively blackmail the rest of society into doing what they want via their actions. Other democratic channels exist to change laws.
Click to expand...

protests - strikes - etc are there to affect other people - if you remove that right people lose their right to effect change. Women would not have the vote when they did had they not been able to "blackmail" society
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top