Insulate Britain protests

[Buelligan]

From the Times. How long before the police can just stop anyone for no reason like under the sus law?

Priti Patel will announce a series of police powers to prevent disruptive protests in her speech to the Conservative Party conference next week, The Times has learnt.

Police will be given powers to stop and search individuals they suspect are carrying devices intended to lock themselves to critical infrastructure, such as handcuffs, bike locks or glue.

Someone should report all the police for carrying handcuffs.

[jamiefairlie]

From the Times. How long before the police can just stop anyone for no reason like under the sus law?

And then rape and murder them. That would be right now then.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Just seen more footage of a woman trying to get passed the protesters to visit her old mum in hospital.  I don't think these guys are doing much for there cause here. 

[Buelligan]

Because the priority is someone going to visit their mum in hospital is it?  Unless a massive tsunami destroys everything, in which case we'll all tut on facebook. 

Jesus christ, people need to wake up and recognise that climate change isn't just going to upset the forrins, it's coming to a place near you.  Soon.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Because the priority is someone going to visit their mum in hospital is it?  Unless a massive tsunami destroys everything, in which case we'll all tut on facebook. 

Jesus christ, people need to wake up and recognise that climate change isn't just going to upset the forrins, it's coming to a place near you.  Soon.

Testing the general public's patients to the limit isn't going to get them on side.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1444935063075016704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Zetetic]

It's not unreasonable to suggest that they might not be bringing inconvenience to bear on the right people, particularly given the specific nature of their demands.

[chveik]

It's not unreasonable to suggest that they might not be bringing inconvenience to bear on the right people, particularly given the specific nature of their demands.

protests are obviously always going to inferfere to regular folks' life. it's the only way to get some leverage. the 'right people' aren't exactly easily accessible.

[Shit Good Nose]

protests are obviously always going to inferfere to regular folks' life. it's the only way to get some leverage.

But most of the governments in power don't give a fuck about regular folks.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Presumably that's why they're taking the tactic of grinding key roads to a halt so businesses don't have any workers in them (much like a strike).

But given Priti Patel is Home Secretary it seems likely they will continue to be more successful at getting her to further invade some pretty fundamental civil liberties rather than having a tory government bow to their demands, whilst making the public less receptive in the process. Good luck to them though I guess.

[chveik]

But most of the governments in power don't give a fuck about regular folks.

blocking the path to key infrastuctures destructing the environment actually bothers governments, people are just caught in it but they're not the target.

[chveik]

But given Priti Patel is Home Secretary it seems likely they will continue to be more successful at getting her to further invade some pretty fundamental civil liberties rather than having a tory government bow to their demands, whilst making the public less receptive in the process. Good luck to them though I guess.

bit of a double bind there. you shouldn't protest because you wouldn't want the right of protesting taken from you

[madhair60]

funny how that dead mum lady just happened to be caught on video isn't it

[Zetetic]

protests are obviously always going to inferfere to regular folks' life. it's the only way to get some leverage. the 'right people' aren't exactly easily accessible.

blocking the path to key infrastuctures destructing the environment actually bothers governments, people are just caught in it

I understand these things, but I also think that here-and-now and with the resources that they have available, this isn't a viable action.

Which I also know is not the same as suggesting an alternative.

I believe a large part of the problem are prevailing beliefs that 1) the public is helpless to exercise power over their governments and 2) governments are helpless to do anything vaguely difficult. (2, maybe, a bit addressed by the last couple of years, in places.)

There's a vicious circularity to these, which I can't see an easy way for anyone to break out of (for something like Insulate Britain's aims) in an ... ethical fashion.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

Presumably that's why they're taking the tactic of grinding key roads to a halt so businesses don't have any workers in them (much like a strike).

But given Priti Patel is Home Secretary it seems likely they will continue to be more successful at getting her to further invade some pretty fundamental civil liberties rather than having a tory government bow to their demands, whilst making the public less receptive in the process. Good luck to them though I guess.

Yup,  can see this giving Patel and the Conservatives a "mandate" to further erode peoples right to protest on the sly.

[Sebastian Cobb]

bit of a double bind there. you shouldn't protest because you wouldn't want the right of protesting taken from you

it's less general rights to protest and an expansion of things like stop and search, which has implications well beyond protest really.

but ultimately any form of action can only be seen as a success if they get the desired outcomes. If they fail to do that then they've only succeeded in making people's lives worse.

[chveik]

it's less general rights to protest and an expansion of things like stop and search, which has implications well beyond protest really.

but ultimately any form of action can only be seen as a success if they get the desired outcomes. If they fail to do that then they've only succeeded in making people's lives worse.

you're in a situation where inaction also what makes things worse. either you propose an alternative or you give the catch 22 stuff a break

[Sebastian Cobb]

i feel like you're more interested in defending all action rather than evaluating whether some action is effective

[Buelligan]

I understand these things, but I also think that here-and-now and with the resources that they have available, this isn't a viable action.

Which I also know is not the same as suggesting an alternative.

I believe a large part of the problem are prevailing beliefs that 1) the public is helpless to exercise power over their governments and 2) governments are helpless to do anything vaguely difficult. (2, maybe, a bit addressed by the last couple of years, in places.)

There's a vicious circularity to these, which I can't see an easy way for anyone to break out of (for something like Insulate Britain's aims) in an ... ethical fashion.

It's like all the attacks on any group or person that's trying to change the world for the better, the people in charge have got the public trained to worry about a lady not being able to see her mum in hospital but not to worry about car park charges at the hospital or staffing shortages or funding cuts or whether they'll be discharged into a care home without a covid test or if there are enough beds or if they're going to be attacked or murdered by the police en route or whether they'll all be wiped away by an enormous mudslide that envelopes them and drowns them slowly, just as long as there isn't some hairy weirdo that needs a good wash making them queue. 

And certainly, if they do ever worry about silly stuff like that, the media makes sure it's ignored or made to look insane and antisocial.

[chveik]

i feel like you're more interested in defending all action rather than evaluating whether some action is effective

it's not really possible to evaluate things because on this forum everytime there's a protest concerning the environment most people slag it off, whatever that protest is. insulate britain seems to be a large movement that will assemble all sorts of actions.

it's fine if you don't find it effective, the problem is getting into the mindset where these protesters are actually responsible for some civil rights being taken from you.

[Sebastian Cobb]

it's not really possible to evaluate things because on this forum everytime there's a protest concerning the environment most people slag it off, whatever that protest is.

it's fine if you don't find it effective, the problem is getting into the mindset where these protesters are actually responsible for some civil rights being taken from you.

I'd argue if you're for something you should be gauging whether something is effective or not rather than blindly defending it. One would certainly hope the people involved are, it's how things get optimised.

If the protesters actions are resulting in creeping stop-and-search powers that certainly does require some thought, at least how to minimise it because the effects of those are obvious and well known, and the government will welcome being provoked if it can take more power. I agree in some cases they probably already know what they want to do here and are waiting for disruption, any disruption, or any cause to enact them. My worry here is that there will likely never be much political will to repeal it.

[chveik]

I understand these things, but I also think that here-and-now and with the resources that they have available, this isn't a viable action.

Which I also know is not the same as suggesting an alternative.

I believe a large part of the problem are prevailing beliefs that 1) the public is helpless to exercise power over their governments and 2) governments are helpless to do anything vaguely difficult. (2, maybe, a bit addressed by the last couple of years, in places.)

There's a vicious circularity to these, which I can't see an easy way for anyone to break out of (for something like Insulate Britain's aims) in an ... ethical fashion.

could you elaborate a bit? because i certainly don't believe 1). and 2) depends on the nature of the government i suppose

[Buelligan]

I'd argue even if you're for something you should be gauging whether something is effective or not rather than blindly defending it. One would certainly hope the people involved are, it's how things get optimised.

If the protesters actions are resulting in creeping stop-and-search powers that certainly does require some thought, at least how to minimise it because the effects of those are obvious and well known, and the government will welcome being provoked if it can take more power. I agree in some cases they probably already know what they want to do here and are waiting for disruption, any disruption, or any cause to enact them. My worry here is that there will likely never be much political will to repeal it.

What?  Like these people are some kind of corporate entity with their own PR department?  Some people understand that you can't negotiate with the planet.  And some people don't care about it, they'll be dead before it really hits where they are.  Some people do care about it and react in the ways they think are appropriate because none of our political leaders are doing much.  Sitting on our arses and tutting though, that's the grown up sensible course of action.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yes yes, all action is good action and therefore sacrosanct.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

It's like all the attacks on any group or person that's trying to change the world for the better, the people in charge have got the public trained to worry about a lady not being able to see her mum in hospital but not to worry about car park charges at the hospital or staffing shortages or funding cuts or whether they'll be discharged into a care home without a covid test or if there are enough beds or if they're going to be attacked or murdered by the police en route or whether they'll all be wiped away by an enormous mudslide that envelopes them and drowns them slowly, just as long as there isn't some hairy weirdo that needs a good wash making them queue. 

And certainly, if they do ever worry about silly stuff like that, the media makes sure it's ignored or made to look insane and antisocial.

Insulate Britain have a just cause, but their method just isn't getting people on side. It's also arrogant to assume the general public do not understand the issues at hand. 

[chveik]

I'd argue even if you're for something you should be gauging whether something is effective or not rather than blindly defending it. One would certainly hope the people involved are, it's how things get optimised.

in any discussion regarding effectiveness you have to be aware it takes a lot of time and effort to get a significant win for the left. i dunno about 'blindly defending', i'm french so a few roads being blocked is nothing to get riled about.

If the protesters actions are resulting in creeping stop-and-search powers that certainly does require some thought, at least how to minimise it because the effects of those are obvious and well known, and the government will welcome being provoked if it can take more power. I agree in some cases they probably already know what they want to do here and are waiting for disruption, any disruption, or any cause to enact them. My worry here is that there will likely never be much political will to repeal it.

you have a fascist government that can decide unilateraly to restrict your rights. if somehow protests that you deem effective would happen, don't you think it will feel even more provoked? i think you need to give your logic some thought too.

[Buelligan]

Yes yes, all action is good action and therefore sacrosanct.

No but doing something that makes people talk about this and that, clearly, some people agree with and are encouraged by, is better than doing nothing and waiting for our rulers to fix things (because they're so great at that).  If anyone has any good or better ideas about how to fix things, please, don't be shy.  Speak up.

Insulate Britain have a just cause, but their method just isn't getting people on side. It's also arrogant to assume the general public do not understand the issues at hand.

I don't think anyone here is doing that are they?  Though it might be ever so convenient to pretend they are.

And what is it to sit around tutting whilst the world burns?  Complacent?  Centrist?  Something beginning with a C probably.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

You said it yourself earlier.

Jesus christ, people need to wake up and recognise that climate change isn't just going to upset the forrins, it's coming to a place near you.  Soon.

People are awake to this issue,  and don't just think it effects the "forrins" as you put it.

[Buelligan]

I was talking about the people who mither on about ladies being held up on the way to visit their mums in hospital, if that's everyone, then yes, they need to wake up. 

Does that mean they don't understand the issues at hand?  Well, the world is going to end - as far as supporting the kind of lives we in the west like to live - that's a fact, unless we change our current behaviour.  As I said earlier, some people do understand that but they don't care because they'll be dead by then (and they don't give a fuck about anybody else). 

[bgmnts]

I know the entire ecology of the planet and all of our lives at risk but to be honest I think it's a bit rum to mildly inconvenience people.

If you weigh it up, it's a difficult one.