Protesters

Author
Discussion

The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Thursday 24th October 2019
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The Suffragettes did not have a website, because not invented yet. In other respects they acted much as XR now act. Should the Suffragettes have been banned?
An interesting comparison given the protests of the Suffragette movement ultimately delivered their goal, Ironically it only impacted the UK and there are countries that still don't allow women to vote, looking at the Middle East in particular!

So using the same comparison, if ER's disruptive actions lead to even more hard-line environmental legislation in the UK, yet it has no impact on the main global polluters (USA, China & India) has ER's actions in the UK been a success?

spikyone

1,413 posts

99 months

Thursday 24th October 2019
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Suffragettes did not have a website, because not invented yet. In other respects they acted much as XR now act. Should the Suffragettes have been banned?
An interesting comparison given the protests of the Suffragette movement ultimately delivered their goal, Ironically it only impacted the UK and there are countries that still don't allow women to vote, looking at the Middle East in particular!

So using the same comparison, if ER's disruptive actions lead to even more hard-line environmental legislation in the UK, yet it has no impact on the main global polluters (USA, China & India) has ER's actions in the UK been a success?
As I mentioned in my reply to BV, we had suffragists in the UK as well as the more lawless suffragettes. Other countries managed to give women the vote as a result of suffragist movements that remained lawful, even before the UK, so would the suffragists have achieved their goal without the lawlessness of the suffragettes? Changing attitudes in society might well have led to that anyway.

Equally, societal attitudes and development of technology is driving us towards a less environmentally-impactful future. It may not be as fast as XR or other campaigners would like, but legislation without the availability of that technology and infrastructure is unlikely to do much other than harm those who are least able to afford significant lifestyle changes. And those who can afford the necessary lifestyle changes will continue to fly business class from LA to attend environmental protests, or preach environmentally-driven veganism before jumping on their private jet, asking us to cut our own emissions and ignore their hypocrisy.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 8th November 2019
quotequote all
The blanket ban on XR protests has been struck down by the Divisional Court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50316561

I have not yet seen the judgment, but reports of it suggest that the case turned on whether several protests in different locations could be treated as one public assembly for the purposes of the legislation relied on by the police.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 8th November 10:41

barian

152 posts

100 months

Saturday 9th November 2019
quotequote all
Having read this thread, and the judgement, what surprised me most was that the 1986 Act empowered a police superintendent to issue an order prohibiting a demonstration at his own discretion. I might have expected at the least that she/he would have to make an application to a magistrate. Although thinking about it, it was the magistrates that authorised the cavalry action at Peterloo.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
As the judgment shows, the exercise of the power is subject to various criteria, so the officer does not have a general discretion.

There are some here who might, with an apparently straight face, regard a Peterloo approach as a good thing.

chandler99

105 posts

131 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
However did paralysing a city for weeks become peaceful protest? #madness

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
As the judgment shows, the exercise of the power is subject to various criteria, so the officer does not have a general discretion.

There are some here who might, with an apparently straight face, regard a Peterloo approach as a good thing.
Peterloo was several thousand (tens of thousands) of the general public being charged by the military, with unarmed civilians being attacked by armed troops.

Not quite the same as a handful of protestors disrupting the general public and the general public taking action themselves - unarmed against unarmed.

If XR cannot carry the public's support, then do they deserve the public's protection?

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
That is missing a point in a manner akin to missing a train that left a week ago.

Please have a re read of both of the Peterloo references above and have another go.

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
That is missing a point in a manner akin to missing a train that left a week ago.

Please have a re read of both of the Peterloo references above and have another go.
I have re read them, and it seems we may be at cross purposes.

I am not making reference to the judgement (which sought to restrain the authority of the police to control protests). I was instead referring to the reference to the violence of Peterloo, where there was a significant asymmetry between the small number of armed attackers and the large number of protestors (actually, the numbers of "protestors" were so large in comparison to the general population in the area one might reasonably refer to them as simply "the public"). The only violence we have seen to date has been visited by unarmed members of the public upon unarmed protestors who had provoked those members of the public. It does not feel to me that we are in any danger of seeing a re-run of Peterloo itself and I don't really consider anyone is recommending a sabre charge upon the protestors.

Perhaps you were meaning the acts passed in the immediate aftermath of Peterloo, which attempted to restrict the right to assemble and protest and drawing a comparison?

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Your train is still on another platform.

A poster above mentioned Peterloo in passing when expressing surprise that an order of the kind overturned in the XR case could be made by a police officer without judicial endorsement.

I mentioned Peterloo because some here and in the other thread about the case have expressed strong views about the suppression of protest. I was being satirical.

No one has made any comparisons between Peterloo and recent events. In particular, no one has AFAIK suggested any comparison between Peterloo and the use of what looks like unlawful retaliatory violence by some commuters against a protester who had obstructed the departure of a train.

barian

152 posts

100 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
As the judgment shows, the exercise of the power is subject to various criteria, so the officer does not have a general discretion.

There are some here who might, with an apparently straight face, regard a Peterloo approach as a good thing.
You are quite right to correct me, thank you. I perhaps should have referred to the police officer acting on his/her own authority, if that would not lead me in to another error.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
I was not seeking to correct you as I do not think that you said anything that needed correcting. I was just adding some qualification to the point about police discretion.

Flooble

5,565 posts

99 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Your train is still on another platform.

A poster above mentioned Peterloo in passing when expressing surprise that an order of the kind overturned in the XR case could be made by a police officer without judicial endorsement.

I mentioned Peterloo because some here and in the other thread about the case have expressed strong views about the suppression of protest. I was being satirical.

No one has made any comparisons between Peterloo and recent events. In particular, no one has AFAIK suggested any comparison between Peterloo and the use of what looks like unlawful retaliatory violence by some commuters against a protester who had obstructed the departure of a train.
Ah, I read the references on the earlier pages which has not helped, I misunderstood the direction.

Satire without oral nuances means I fear I shall forever be in the wrong coach, travelling to Bognor while you ar en-route to Southampton

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Heaven forefend that any misfortune should take me to Southampton.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 11th November 2019
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
An interesting comparison given the protests of the Suffragette movement ultimately delivered their goal, Ironically it only impacted the UK and there are countries that still don't allow women to vote, looking at the Middle East in particular!

So using the same comparison, if ER's disruptive actions lead to even more hard-line environmental legislation in the UK, yet it has no impact on the main global polluters (USA, China & India) has ER's actions in the UK been a success?
There is a lot of argument that the equalising of the voting age of men and women, ie moving the lower age of 30 down to 21, would have gone ahead regardless of the suffragette movement.

Equal suffrage had a majority of support in the HoC in the late 19th, probably from around the 1880s. It was so strong that the government instigated what can only be described as a political crisis once Victoria (gods bless 'er) cleared off in order to enforce it. The only reason the female voting age was raised to 30, in comparison to 21 for men, was as a short-term concession to placate the lords, then very powerful, probably more so than the commons. It would probably been made law well before 1918, but there was a kerfuffle that delayed it being signed off. There was a public health hiccup that cost a quarter of a million UK deaths in 18/19.

The time after the war was politically turbulent, with a seemingly endless supply of various prime ministers. Baldwin brought in the legislation in 1927, just a couple of years into his term, and it cost him the next election. There was a lot of pressure on the post war government, from both men and women, for reform and this can be described as the suffrage movement. The effects of the disruptive elements is open to question.

Oddly enough, women were not banned from voting in British elections until 1832.


RichardDastardly

157 posts

62 months

Monday 11th November 2019
quotequote all
No matter how noble some of their aims might be, I have to say that I struggle to have sympathy with these particular protesters when:
1. amongst their funders appear to be a significant number of very wealthy individuals who are reliably reputed to regularly use more than their fair share of the Earth’s finite resources and would no doubt continue to use private jets unaffected by the hardline environmental legislation restricting (only) ‘normal’ people, that they appear to advocate as a hobby (before flying back to the US to do another gig/film/promo/awards do); and
2. They so readily and seemingly gleefully abandon their principles when there is a chance to cause maximum disruption (eg interfere with communal public transport).
I just get the feeling that, amongst the genuine environmentalists there is a large contingent that just want a politically correct excuse to protest about something and a small contingent of highly visible celebrities of dubious intelligence/motive.

(p.s. Sorry to sound like a negative miserable old f.ucker. I’ll go back to fantasising about cars now...)