Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?

[WinstonWolf]

Pinoyuk said:

Kuji said:

Upskirting is illegal you know.

Very very sharp :-)

The mere mention of it can get a thread pulled...

[jonmiles]

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

[grumbledoak]

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

And in the real world annoying thousands of people might have repercussions I'm afraid.

Sympathy is sometimes thin on the ground in the real world, too.

[jonmiles]

grumbledoak said:

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

And in the real world annoying thousands of people might have repercussions I'm afraid.

Sympathy is sometimes thin on the ground in the real world, too.

Nobody is asking for sympathy for them or have I missed something. The point I'd and others are making is that antagonism and provocation are not mitigating circumstances when a mob or anyone else attacks an individual simply because they are being held up.

If they were molesting your Granny then fair enough.

[turbobloke]

jonmiles said:

grumbledoak said:

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

And in the real world annoying thousands of people might have repercussions I'm afraid.

Sympathy is sometimes thin on the ground in the real world, too.

Nobody is asking for sympathy for them or have I missed something. The point I'd and others are making is that antagonism and provocation are not mitigating circumstances when a mob or anyone else attacks an individual simply because they are being held up.

Equally the police have powers under the law to impose restrictions on planned protests. In this case there's a Section 14 order banning XR protests from the whole of London, so it's end of story there now "I'm afraid" except that the XR people think they're above the law. Presumably as you're rightly keen on the law you'll condemn this unlawful behaviour.

[otolith]

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

[Digga]

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

None at all. In the cold light of day, much of what was being done as 'protest' was a public order offence at bare minimum.

[jonmiles]

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

grumbledoak said:

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

And in the real world annoying thousands of people might have repercussions I'm afraid.

Sympathy is sometimes thin on the ground in the real world, too.

Nobody is asking for sympathy for them or have I missed something. The point I'd and others are making is that antagonism and provocation are not mitigating circumstances when a mob or anyone else attacks an individual simply because they are being held up.

Equally the police have powers under the law to impose restrictions on planned protests. In this case there's a Section 14 order banning XR protests from the whole of London, so it's end of story there now "I'm afraid" except that the XR people think they're above the law. Presumably as you're rightly keen on the law you'll condemn this unlawful behaviour.

Of course - aren't you keen on the law too?

Presumably you'll likewise condemn the physical assault that took place on the protestor?

[jonmiles]

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

Do you think train drivers or other staff shouldn't protest by withdrawing their labour? It has the same effect.

[Gadgetmac]

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

grumbledoak said:

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

And in the real world annoying thousands of people might have repercussions I'm afraid.

Sympathy is sometimes thin on the ground in the real world, too.

Nobody is asking for sympathy for them or have I missed something. The point I'd and others are making is that antagonism and provocation are not mitigating circumstances when a mob or anyone else attacks an individual simply because they are being held up.

Equally the police have powers under the law to impose restrictions on planned protests. In this case there's a Section 14 order banning XR protests from the whole of London, so it's end of story there now "I'm afraid" except that the XR people think they're above the law. Presumably as you're rightly keen on the law you'll condemn this unlawful behaviour.

Of course - aren't you keen on the law too?

Presumably you'll likewise condemn the physical assault that took place on the protestor?

Be prepared for a qualified answer.

[i4got]

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

Do you think train drivers or other staff shouldn't protest by withdrawing their labour? It has the same effect.

Except they aren't withdrawing their labour. If anything, it's more akin to secondary picketing which is unlawful.

[jonmiles]

i4got said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

Do you think train drivers or other staff shouldn't protest by withdrawing their labour? It has the same effect.

Except they aren't withdrawing their labour. If anything, it's more akin to secondary picketing which is unlawful.

The point is it's a protest. Even the Fox-Chasers protest stopped the traffic. God help us if we ever get to the point that you can't protest if it puts somebody else out for an hour or two.

I have no problem with the commuters pushing past a protestor - but giving him a kicking is another matter entirely.

[anonymous-user]

jonmiles said:

Of course - aren't you keen on the law too?

Presumably you'll likewise condemn the physical assault that took place on the protestor?

Nope, fvck him. He started it and AFAIK he wasn't even injured. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[Gadgetmac]

fblm said:

jonmiles said:

Of course - aren't you keen on the law too?

Presumably you'll likewise condemn the physical assault that took place on the protestor?

Nope, fvck him. He started it and AFAIK he wasn't even injured. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

That about the level I've come to expect in NP&E.

[anonymous-user]

Gadgetmac said:

That about the level I've come to expect in NP&E.

Best you not venture out into the real world then cupcake.

[Gadgetmac]

fblm said:

Gadgetmac said:

That about the level I've come to expect in NP&E.

Best you not venture out into the real world then cupcake.

Not if there's too many more of you sweetcheeks.

[otolith]

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

There is a fundamental difference between disruption which occurs because a protest is happening and protesting by disrupting. Thousands of people cannot march down a street without their presence causing some disruption. Two people can perfectly well stand by a banner in a tube station without stopping hundreds of people getting to work.

jonmiles said:

Do you think train drivers or other staff shouldn't protest by withdrawing their labour? It has the same effect.

I don't think that's remotely the same thing. I don't think NHS staff striking is the same as pro-life people blocking a hospital either.

[RemyMartin81D]

Gadgetmac said:

Utter rubbish. It's never acceptable to start giving someone a kicking, especially when you're mob handed.

Only on PH would you hear arguments defending this bks or trying to justify it.

Everyone in my work place both male and female agreed with the kicking.

[jonmiles]

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

There is a fundamental difference between disruption which occurs because a protest is happening and protesting by disrupting. Thousands of people cannot march down a street without their presence causing some disruption. Two people can perfectly well stand by a banner in a tube station without stopping hundreds of people getting to work.

We're clearly never going to agree but frankly it's all gone off on a tangent now anyway - the question is about the violence shown to them.

Acceptable or not acceptable?

Should the perpetrators be punished or not?

[turbobloke]

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Thats a ridiculous answer. Victim blaming pure and simple.

Should the girl in the short skirt accept responsibility for the moron who can’t control himself and rapes her?

Did you just equate a woman’s right to wear what she chooses with deliberately antagonistic and antisocial behaviour?

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

The right to protest exists as a result to the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression. To some extent the state balances these rights against the rights of the general public to go about their business and permits some disruption, but there is not an explicit right to disrupt or to use disruption as a protest.

There is no right to paralyse public transport systems by climbing on trains, however noble you imagine your cause to be.

Indeed although I can't think of one single public protest that didn't in one way or another paralyse public transport systems ie the bus, trains etc

There is a fundamental difference between disruption which occurs because a protest is happening and protesting by disrupting. Thousands of people cannot march down a street without their presence causing some disruption. Two people can perfectly well stand by a banner in a tube station without stopping hundreds of people getting to work.

We're clearly never going to agree but frankly it's all gone off on a tangent now anyway - the question is about the violence shown to them.

Acceptable or not acceptable?

Should the perpetrators be punished or not?

Violence in self-defence after seeing a commuter kicked in the head by a protester atop a tube train? Potential victims do not have to wait to be attacked to have a valid claim of self-defence. A person or persons can claim successfully that they attacked in self-defence if they believed they were in danger.