Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?
Discussion
rscott said:
Diderot said:
The Mad Monk said:
TL:DR
Am I the first to ask:- "Don't these people have jobs to go to?"
Or is saving the planet more important than mundane stuff like putting food on the table?
Some of them are being paid to protest. Up to £400 per week. Rentamob. Am I the first to ask:- "Don't these people have jobs to go to?"
Or is saving the planet more important than mundane stuff like putting food on the table?
There will always be a fringe element of troublemakers/leftists/anarchists at any large gatherings.
This summer I saw Socialist Worker banners at the Gay Pride day in Birmingham - no need or relevance, same with this XR lot. They are a bunch of idiots who don't 'get' the irony of protesting in plastic tents, doing yoga on imported synthetic Chinese mats and eating Mcdonalds.
If they want to glue themselves to the road, let them. Sooner or later they will get bored of sitting in their own filth, nobody will go near them and they will get release themselves. No need to be attention w
es about it.
It annoys me far more than it probably should that they are permitted to stop law abiding citizens from going about their daily business and stopping traffic, etc. Their right to protest is fine, but causing an obstruction, causing traffic chaos and delays really isn't.
This summer I saw Socialist Worker banners at the Gay Pride day in Birmingham - no need or relevance, same with this XR lot. They are a bunch of idiots who don't 'get' the irony of protesting in plastic tents, doing yoga on imported synthetic Chinese mats and eating Mcdonalds.
If they want to glue themselves to the road, let them. Sooner or later they will get bored of sitting in their own filth, nobody will go near them and they will get release themselves. No need to be attention w
es about it.It annoys me far more than it probably should that they are permitted to stop law abiding citizens from going about their daily business and stopping traffic, etc. Their right to protest is fine, but causing an obstruction, causing traffic chaos and delays really isn't.
Tyre Smoke said:
It annoys me far more than it probably should that they are permitted to stop law abiding citizens from going about their daily business and stopping traffic, etc. Their right to protest is fine, but causing an obstruction, causing traffic chaos and delays really isn't.
What makes the protestors not law abiding? With the police presence any illegal activity will be spotted straight away. Mildly inconveniencing people isn't against the law.Almost got taken out by a cyclist as ER had blocked the road the other day by standing on the crossing, so I had to cross the road near to Devonshire Sq on a section beyond the actual crossing. Cyclist came barrelling through and I didn't see him until he was on top of me! I apologised, frozen like a bloody idiot in the middle of the road.
So they've inconvenienced me now and my opinion of them has only been made worse. They're not children, many of them not even young. Your typical, out-looking-for-trouble tearaways who don't even have a job to be away from, or much older people who need a better excuse for a hobby.
Bonkers.
So they've inconvenienced me now and my opinion of them has only been made worse. They're not children, many of them not even young. Your typical, out-looking-for-trouble tearaways who don't even have a job to be away from, or much older people who need a better excuse for a hobby.
Bonkers.
ZedLeg said:
Tyre Smoke said:
It annoys me far more than it probably should that they are permitted to stop law abiding citizens from going about their daily business and stopping traffic, etc. Their right to protest is fine, but causing an obstruction, causing traffic chaos and delays really isn't.
What makes the protestors not law abiding? With the police presence any illegal activity will be spotted straight away. Mildly inconveniencing people isn't against the law.ZedLeg said:
Tyre Smoke said:
It annoys me far more than it probably should that they are permitted to stop law abiding citizens from going about their daily business and stopping traffic, etc. Their right to protest is fine, but causing an obstruction, causing traffic chaos and delays really isn't.
What makes the protestors not law abiding? With the police presence any illegal activity will be spotted straight away. Mildly inconveniencing people isn't against the law.
.ZedLeg said:
Still wondering what makes the protestors not law abiding?
Is that the bit where unlawful obstruction of the highway, unlawful road closures (lacking any valid Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) and use of a motor vehicle on the highway without insurance come into it? It's either that or a parrot.turbobloke said:
ZedLeg said:
Still wondering what makes the protestors not law abiding?
Is that the bit where unlawful obstruction of the highway, unlawful road closures (lacking any valid Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) and use of a motor vehicle on the highway without insurance come into it? It's either that or a parrot.ChevyChase77 said:
turbobloke said:
ZedLeg said:
Still wondering what makes the protestors not law abiding?
Is that the bit where unlawful obstruction of the highway, unlawful road closures (lacking any valid Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) and use of a motor vehicle on the highway without insurance come into it? It's either that or a parrot.
Just to be clear, and to put the discussion back to my original question, I haven't stated that XR are terrorists. At the moment, by my definition at least, they are not. What I'm interested to know is just how far it's felt they can push things before they've crossed the line from anarchism to terrorism?
CPS definition of terrorism:
Time for another make your mind up time.
On a webpage regarding terrorism legislation said:
Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorismTime for another make your mind up time.
ChevyChase77 said:
turbobloke said:
ZedLeg said:
Still wondering what makes the protestors not law abiding?
Is that the bit where unlawful obstruction of the highway, unlawful road closures (lacking any valid Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) and use of a motor vehicle on the highway without insurance come into it? It's either that or a parrot.ZedLeg said:
ChevyChase77 said:
turbobloke said:
ZedLeg said:
Still wondering what makes the protestors not law abiding?
Is that the bit where unlawful obstruction of the highway, unlawful road closures (lacking any valid Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) and use of a motor vehicle on the highway without insurance come into it? It's either that or a parrot.
There's endangering the public to consider, and in any case causing permanent damage is not a criterion for unlawful behaviour.
Surely the "right to protest" should not trump the "right to go about one's business not protesting".
I am sure the law is set to try to allow both, but some quarters seem to want to exercise their rights and not allow others to exercise theirs, hence the deliberate obstruction etc.
I read that in the London yesterday, there were over 20 double decker busses stuck for several hours over (5 I think) with a large number of school kids being delivered to three schools en route. What right do the activists have to deny our kids and education as well as denying ordinary MOPs the right to go to work.
Answer, is absofkinglutely none.
Their press even highlighted an Ambulance that they waved through after only impeding it for "20 seconds" to cheers from the protestors......well what about how impeded it was in the 5 mile tailback BEFORE the protest in the road at the junction.
fking selfish retards.
I am sure the law is set to try to allow both, but some quarters seem to want to exercise their rights and not allow others to exercise theirs, hence the deliberate obstruction etc.
I read that in the London yesterday, there were over 20 double decker busses stuck for several hours over (5 I think) with a large number of school kids being delivered to three schools en route. What right do the activists have to deny our kids and education as well as denying ordinary MOPs the right to go to work.
Answer, is absof
kinglutely none. Their press even highlighted an Ambulance that they waved through after only impeding it for "20 seconds" to cheers from the protestors......well what about how impeded it was in the 5 mile tailback BEFORE the protest in the road at the junction.
f
king selfish retards. turbobloke said:
CPS definition of terrorism:
Time for another make your mind up time.
I would say they are domestic terrorists. They want to subvert the government and install whatever it is they call their alternative and they're doing it through direct action which is causing damage, is causing disruption and will be having an economic impact.On a webpage regarding terrorism legislation said:
Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorismTime for another make your mind up time.
Hats off to the Met, it's about 6 months too late but better than continuing to look like impotent Wally's.
This happens every tume there's a real protest about anything though. Everyone supported the fuel strikes until it started to drag on and then the press started with the stories of delayed ambulances, etc.
Like the brexit referendum, it strikes me that in a country with food in the fridge, noone cares about anything enough to put up with having their week ruined.
How big were Ghandis civil disobedience protests?
Like the brexit referendum, it strikes me that in a country with food in the fridge, noone cares about anything enough to put up with having their week ruined.
How big were Ghandis civil disobedience protests?
poo at Paul's said:
Surely the "right to protest" should not trump the "right to go about one's business not protesting".
I am sure the law is set to try to allow both, but some quarters seem to want to exercise their rights and not allow others to exercise theirs, hence the deliberate obstruction etc.
I read that in the London yesterday, there were over 20 double decker busses stuck for several hours over (5 I think) with a large number of school kids being delivered to three schools en route. What right do the activists have to deny our kids and education as well as denying ordinary MOPs the right to go to work.
Answer, is absofkinglutely none.
Their press even highlighted an Ambulance that they waved through after only impeding it for "20 seconds" to cheers from the protestors......well what about how impeded it was in the 5 mile tailback BEFORE the protest in the road at the junction.
fking selfish retards.
Same delays with the black cab drivers or yellow vest protestors. Strangely, they never got discussed on here in the same way.I am sure the law is set to try to allow both, but some quarters seem to want to exercise their rights and not allow others to exercise theirs, hence the deliberate obstruction etc.
I read that in the London yesterday, there were over 20 double decker busses stuck for several hours over (5 I think) with a large number of school kids being delivered to three schools en route. What right do the activists have to deny our kids and education as well as denying ordinary MOPs the right to go to work.
Answer, is absof
kinglutely none. Their press even highlighted an Ambulance that they waved through after only impeding it for "20 seconds" to cheers from the protestors......well what about how impeded it was in the 5 mile tailback BEFORE the protest in the road at the junction.
f
king selfish retards. Mort7 said:
I'm intrigued to know other opinions on this.
A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.
It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.
So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?
Over to you.
How insulting to those who have been affected by real terrorism. It's as bad as calling everyone a racist because you don't agree with them. A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.
It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.
So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?
Over to you.
What an embarrassment of a post.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff