Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?

[Gadgetmac]

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

[jonmiles]

turbobloke said:

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.

Looking at the footage that would be laughed out of court I'm afraid. All of those on the platform having dragged the man down from the train top were scared that he would attack them so gave him a mob kicking?

But your argument is also a damn good reason for why the protester kicked out from on top of the train.

You didn't answer my questions though?

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

That females are far less likely to condone violence than males...

As if you didn't know that.

[Gadgetmac]

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Looking at the footage that would be laughed out of court I'm afraid. All of those on the platform having dragged the man down from the train top were scared that he would attack them so gave him a mob kicking?

But your argument is also a damn good reason for why the protester kicked out from on top of the train.

You didn't answer my questions though?

I did warn you.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

That females are far less likely to condone violence than males...

As if you didn't know that.

Had these hypothetical females just seen a commuter kicked in the head?

Generalisations are too...generalised.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

That females are far less likely to condone violence than males...

As if you didn't know that.

Had these hypothetical females just seen a commuter kicked in the head?

Generalisations are too...generalised.

Best ask Remy if they are hypothetical.

Anyway, answer the question put to you, he appears to have answered yours.

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

That females are far less likely to condone violence than males...

As if you didn't know that.

Had these hypothetical females just seen a commuter kicked in the head?

Generalisations are too...generalised.

Best ask Remy if they are hypothetical.

That looks/sounds like a "no".

[AJL308]

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.

No, it doesn't, actually. It has become the accepted norm among some people that if you object to something then it is perfectly acceptable to disrupt the lives of others and lives of others by hindering them going about their lives and lawful business in order to convey said objection. That is bks, quite frankly.

To "protest" means exactly that - to register and objection to something. It doesn't mean that you have the right to disrupt the lives of other people to register that objection.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Gadgetmac said:

RemyMartin81D said:

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.

What's your point? And I find it difficult to believe all of the females agreed that violence was an acceptable outcome.

What's your sexist point?

That females are far less likely to condone violence than males...

As if you didn't know that.

Had these hypothetical females just seen a commuter kicked in the head?

Generalisations are too...generalised.

Best ask Remy if they are hypothetical.

That looks/sounds like a "no".

And that sounds like a swerve.

[turbobloke]

Not at all.

[otolith]

jonmiles said:

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?

Use of force to remove the provocateurs was acceptable and commendable.

Dispensation of mob justice was not in principle acceptable - but on the other hand I would not consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute, and if the criminal justice system has spare capacity I'd rather it was used to stop XR frustrating ordinary people going about their daily business.

Bluntly, if they get themselves beaten up by deliberately making themselves a problem for the public, I don't really care.

[jonmiles]

AJL308 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.

No, it doesn't, actually. It has become the accepted norm among some people that if you object to something then it is perfectly acceptable to disrupt the lives of others and lives of others by hindering them going about their lives and lawful business in order to convey said objection. That is bks, quite frankly.

To "protest" means exactly that - to register and objection to something. It doesn't mean that you have the right to disrupt the lives of other people to register that objection.

So the 1 million protest marching against Blairs war were wrong to do it? They shut down most of central London that day disrupting thousands of others going about their business.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

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?

Use of force to remove the provocateurs was acceptable and commendable.

Dispensation of mob justice was not in principle acceptable - but on the other hand I would not consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute, and if the criminal justice system has spare capacity I'd rather it was used to stop XR frustrating ordinary people going about their daily business.

Bluntly, if they get themselves beaten up by deliberately making themselves a problem for the public, I don't really care.

As per an earlier post, pro-active self-defence is acceptable in law where people believe they are in danger, I'd say seeing a commuter kicked in the head fits the bill, supporters of RU/XR may disagree.

[Gadgetmac]

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

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?

Use of force to remove the provocateurs was acceptable and commendable.

Dispensation of mob justice was not in principle acceptable - but on the other hand I would not consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute, and if the criminal justice system has spare capacity I'd rather it was used to stop XR frustrating ordinary people going about their daily business.

Bluntly, if they get themselves beaten up by deliberately making themselves a problem for the public, I don't really care.

I know you don't really care and colour me surprised that you think beating someone up is acceptable and shouldn't be prosecuted.

Until you're the one being given a kicking at done point whereupon it'll be the most vile act imaginable.

Still, you're in good company on NP&E

[AJL308]

otolith said:

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.

This, for me, gives away exactly what these people are all about. If you were passionate about the environment and the reduction of pollution the very last thing you would do is attempt you disrupt one of the largest public mass transport systems in the Western hemishpere. They are just anarchist/anti-capitalist nutters.

Edited by AJL308 on Wednesday 23 October 17:08

[AJL308]

jonmiles said:

So the 1 million protest marching against Blairs war were wrong to do it? They shut down most of central London that day disrupting thousands of others going about their business.

That was a lawful, licensed single event. The primary purpose was to politically protest in the manner of registering an objection. WR are "protesting" in the manner of disruption and have said as much. They are using the disruption as their method of protest. That is not merely registering an objection.

Lets face facts here. These people are in no way actually protesting about climate change. They are attempting to destabilise the capitalist system. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded, quite frankly. They are Anarchists, not environmentalists.

[otolith]

Gadgetmac said:

otolith said:

jonmiles said:

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?

Use of force to remove the provocateurs was acceptable and commendable.

Dispensation of mob justice was not in principle acceptable - but on the other hand I would not consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute, and if the criminal justice system has spare capacity I'd rather it was used to stop XR frustrating ordinary people going about their daily business.

Bluntly, if they get themselves beaten up by deliberately making themselves a problem for the public, I don't really care.

I know you don't really care and colour me surprised that you think beating someone up is acceptable and shouldn't be prosecuted.

Until you're the one being given a kicking at done point whereupon it'll be the most vile act imaginable.

Still, you're in good company on NP&E

Oh get over yourself. I'm not going to get myself given a kicking because I don't go round deliberately making a nuisance of myself.

If the same thing happened to an EDL member while picketing a mosque, or a Muslims Against Crusades member while disrupting Remembrance Day services, or a pro-life campaigner while picketing a clinic, I'd take the same view.

[Gadgetmac]

otolith said:

Oh get over yourself. I'm not going to get myself given a kicking because I don't go round deliberately making a nuisance of myself

That's because it's far easier for you to annoy people online nowadays and save yourself the worry.

[turbobloke]

AJL308 said:

jonmiles said:

So the 1 million protest marching against Blairs war were wrong to do it? They shut down most of central London that day disrupting thousands of others going about their business.

That was a lawful, licensed single event. The primary purpose was to politically protest in the manner of registering an objection. WR are "protesting" in the manner of disruption and have said as much. They are using the disruption as their method of protest. That is not merely registering an objection.

Lets face facts here. These people are in no way actually protesting about climate change. They are attempting to destabilise the capitalist system. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded, quite frankly. They are Anarchists, not environmentalists.

Exactly. Aims have been clearly stated by RU/XR. Their statement as linked on PH points out that they believe global warming won't be stopped, that it's not about the environment. It's about overthrowing capitalism.