eco-nutters take over stansted airport
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7770513.s...
ok perhaps a bit extreme a title, but they've certainly prevented anything happening there.
Seems like quite a disruptive protest with no flights in or out of stansted and they've built themselves a little fortress.
Twunts of the highest order imo, and will hopefully be removed with excessive force. First time ever I'd be happy to see the new terrorism excuses used for the wrong reasons.
Edited as I was trigger happy with the submit button
ok perhaps a bit extreme a title, but they've certainly prevented anything happening there.
Seems like quite a disruptive protest with no flights in or out of stansted and they've built themselves a little fortress.
Twunts of the highest order imo, and will hopefully be removed with excessive force. First time ever I'd be happy to see the new terrorism excuses used for the wrong reasons.
Edited as I was trigger happy with the submit button
Edited by Stu R on Monday 8th December 06:51
The beeb really are desperate to make this something more than it is
Reporter who was off on his jollies managed to stretch what could have been 'not seen anything, but it's bastid busy' into a full account of where he was going, who with, why, and how many pairs of jockeys he put into his case (which is a samsonite that he purchased in 1999 from a shop in putney).
Reporter who was off on his jollies managed to stretch what could have been 'not seen anything, but it's bastid busy' into a full account of where he was going, who with, why, and how many pairs of jockeys he put into his case (which is a samsonite that he purchased in 1999 from a shop in putney).
kers.
Sounds like a perfect use for the terrorism act.
Armed police, gas them and lock them up for as long 90 days. Job done.
Hit them hard with force and then lock them away until everyone forgets about it.
That should convince people not to try anything like it again and ruin the greenies christmas with mummy and daddy.
Armed police, gas them and lock them up for as long 90 days. Job done.
Hit them hard with force and then lock them away until everyone forgets about it.
That should convince people not to try anything like it again and ruin the greenies christmas with mummy and daddy.
While I completely agree that what they're doing is disruptive and annoying, I really don't like the idea of anti-terrorism laws being used to deal with them.
What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
CommanderJameson said:
While I completely agree that what they're doing is disruptive and annoying, I really don't like the idea of anti-terrorism laws being used to deal with them.
What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
Walking down a public street is a lot different from using bolt-cutters to gain access through security fencing and encamping oneself on a working taxiway of a busy airport. That is not protest, it is stupidity of the highest order.What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
CommanderJameson said:
While I completely agree that what they're doing is disruptive and annoying, I really don't like the idea of anti-terrorism laws being used to deal with them.
What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
That's WAY to sophisticated a point for many people. Most people are quite happy to rant and rave about loss of freedoms when the freedom being lost is something that they like doing. When the freedom being lost is something they aren't interested in, or something they actually disagree with, then the loss of the freedom might even be actively supported.What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
I haven't much time for eco-warriors - but I wouldn't advocate draconian measures against them just because I disagree with their point of view.
JJCW said:
CommanderJameson said:
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against.
Non-violent yes, disruptive no.This is the equivalent of me parking in front of your driveway because i don't agree with something you do.
CommanderJameson said:
While I completely agree that what they're doing is disruptive and annoying, I really don't like the idea of anti-terrorism laws being used to deal with them.
What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
Hear hear!!What if they were clogging up central London, instead, in a demonstration over, say, hunting foxes with hounds?
Or if they were protesting for the right to drive your car, in the face of a new law that made it illegal so to do for non-essential (to be defined by The State) journeys?
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against. Totalitarian states brook no objection, and it's all too easy to get there from here.
In this particular case, we (here on PH) generally don't agree with the protesters. One day, though, they'll be people we do support and agree with.
Beats signing yet another Number 10 petition and getting ignored.
They might be eco-lentalists, but they have far bigger balls than most on here have.
Eric Mc said:
JJCW said:
CommanderJameson said:
Disruptive, non-violent protest should be something we support, not rail against.
Non-violent yes, disruptive no.This is the equivalent of me parking in front of your driveway because i don't agree with something you do.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff