And round and round the circle we go again, sometimes to enact democratic change you have to protest in a way that breaks that law and if those protestors are willing through sheer sense of conviction............................
@Rascal - TBF - on this thread you might be guilty of protesting too much - everyone has gotten your message and there is not a single post that suggests that there should not be a right to protest - so why try and suggest that some people are advocating that and then by extension associate them with the RWYou cannot mention rights and the democratic process but then advocate breaking the law which is the very thing that underpins the democratic process.
do more on climate change than a single Insulate Britain protester sat in his way will do.
And that's where the hypocrisy about the 'defence' of these idiots rests. Thos defending the rights of the protestors have said little about the rights of others being affected by their actions; the rights of protestors are clearly more important that the rights of peaceful law abiding citizens in their eyes.Indeed and now the freedom to glue yourself to the road is all that matters. I thought we were talking about protesting about climate change but clearly it's not about that and quite clearly it was never about that.
Most people know it's wrong and there's no defence so they change tack to civil rights, but what about the civil rights of the people inconvenienced, nope no sh*ts given there.
Christ, I wish I had enough time in the day to go to one of these protests but many of us working mugs haven't quite got the time. I suppose these protesters see normal people as the problem so that's why they lie in the roads. It's like standing in the road is the morally superior position which we have to suffer thanks to the legal umbrella of civil rights..
And that's where the hypocrisy about the 'defence' of these idiots rests. Thos defending the rights of the protestors have said little about the rights of others being affected by their actions; the rights of protestors are clearly more important that the rights of peaceful law abiding citizens in their eyes.
So where is the line drawn? Military coups? They are in effect an act of protest that breaks the law but brings about change.You could apply this to any protest in history.
"Oh so I guess the right of these women to throw themselves in front of horses is more important than out right to watch the horseracing".
"OH I Guess the rights of these miners to strike and protest for a fair wage is more important than my right to have electricity".
Protest only works by disrupting daily life. Just come out and say you're against the right to protest if you're going to pretend only protests that don't affect anyone should be allowed.
You dont think Climate Change is as serious an issue as coal miners wages or womens suffrage, but guess what? Loads of people thought those causes were stupid and selfish and definitely very middle class in the case of suffrage.
What you personally deem worth protesting isn't relevant.
Also, in bold, where have I ever said anything like I am opposed to home insulation or that I reject the climate change incentive? I am fully in support of all efforts to become zero carbon AND also I encourage more efforts to clean up the enviroment, reduce waste and am wholly anti-pollution, even volunteering for a local group that tackles public littering. Once again you're inventing something that hasn't been said by me, making assumptions that are completely false and baseless, all to prove a counter point that I didn't even make. Got a habit of doing that haven't you.
I called them middle class yuppies who don't care a jot about the cause they pretend to fight for, something their own members have admitted to. Touched a nerve, did I?Its literally on the last page where you say insulate Britain cant be compared to legitimate protests because they're middle class.
I called them middle class yuppies who don't care a jot about the cause they pretend to fight for, something their own members have admitted to. Touched a nerve, did I?
Regardless, how does that suggest i'm against incentives to tackle climate change?
Where?You said a climate change protest cant be compared to "genuine causes".
You're the one who misinterprets what's being said. Like most people you're a 'headline reader'; you don't bother with the entire context of what's been written.You said a climate change protest cant be compared to "genuine causes".
Seriously why is it everyone has to continually repeat back to you what you've said in previous comments after you deny it 1 page later.
Can you not keep track of what you've said?
Where?
Jesus you seriously cannot read people's posts properly, can you.
THESE jokers, the Insulate Britain mob, are not a genuine group that cares deeply for what they're 'protesting'. The cause itself is worthy of attention, the people doing it are not genuine in what they believe in. Basically they're liars.
Again, READ and understand posts properly before jumping to your inaccurate conclusion. What is this the fifth time you've done it now?
Please tell me you're not comparing these middle class ideologists with those genuine causes.
Again, this is you not understandin the full context of what's been said. Anyone can pick and choose a sentence and give it a different meaning, like you constantly do.More gaslighting bullshit where you pretend you didn't say something you did.
Again, this is you not understandin the full context of what's been said. Anyone can pick and choose a sentence and give it a different meaning, like you constantly do.
Read the WHOLE post, in context and you should (doubtful, but I live in hope) be able to understand where you've misunderstood the point. Others understood it, why haven't you?
WrongI understand it perfectly well you think insulate britains climate change protest is not a genuine cause, unlike wages or poll tax.
That is what you've written. Those are your words.
If you meant something else you should write something else.
This was in reference to how those at Peterloo, who were assaulted by the Army, could be comparable to the 'suffering' of the Insulate Britain twats, who defied injunctions and then demanded they be sent to prison. Not comparable incidents, which was the point I was raising.Please tell me you're not comparing these middle class ideologists with those genuine causes.
Most of them don't even practice what they preach and their own 'spokesperson' admitted they don't actually care about insulation. https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/09/insu...te-who-doesnt-care-about-insulation-15393293/
I don't need to "write something else".I understand it perfectly well you think insulate britains climate change protest is not a genuine cause, unlike wages or poll tax.
That is what you've written. Those are your words.
If you meant something else you should write something else.
And if you think Climate change is a genuine cause then one bloke not insulating a house he doesn't own isn't relevant is it?
Wrong
No it wasn't what i've written.
@Rascal doesn't care about the stupid point you made because he doesn't care whether Climate change is a genuine cause, he thinks protest is a fundamental right regardless of the validity of the cause.I don't need to "write something else".
You need to do a better job yourself at understanding what's been written. I can't dumb myself down for the likes of you. NB Rascal understood the point I made, hence the response he did was vastly different from yours.
They’ve probably got COVID from licking the roads.Sorry to shi*house but based upon what's happening in London today, is this where we further defend protesters rights to break the law and protest illegally?
There's a few on here that willSorry to shi*house but based upon what's happening in London today, is this where we further defend protesters rights to break the law and protest illegally?