Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?

[poo at Paul's]

Also, back in 2000 in the fuel protests, peaceful protests were made at fuel depots stopping tankers coming and going. Some legislation was passed to stop such action, is this the same leg now trying to stop the XR crusties, or was it specific to the blockading of fuel depots ?

If specific to stop blockading a particular location, can that not be expanded to cover other areas, eg airports, square mile, main arterial routes etc?

[ZedLeg]

turbobloke said:

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.

I also guess vanadlising the treasury, spraying it with fake blood from a fire truck was breaking the law too......

Did it do any damage?

Quite a lot to the clothing and kudos of the incapable sprayers.



There's endangering the public to consider, and in any case causing permanent damage is not a criterion for unlawful behaviour.

It is for vandalism.

[turbobloke]

ChocolateFrog said:

RobDickinson said:

These people, they.,. they WANT A BETTER PLANET!!! Must be terrorists..

They want a better planet for themselves. Everyone else must be told what to do and fall in line to achieve this.

On top of that the double irony is that it's not the wanting to have a better planet bit that's causing the problems. That could be expressed in a letter to an MP or a student essay, in an ER anarchic marxism version of planetary existence with vastly reduced energy available and far less mechanised transport, these anarchists and marxists wouldn't be better off either. There's no evidence that they're capable of picturing the global nightmares their policies would cause.

[glazbagun]

turbobloke said:

CPS definition of terrorism:

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/terrorism

Time for another make your mind up time.

That sounds like it covers just about anything and everything that could be classed as protest by anyone. Did Blair draft that definition by any chance?

[turbobloke]

ZedLeg said:

turbobloke said:

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.

I also guess vanadlising the treasury, spraying it with fake blood from a fire truck was breaking the law too......

Did it do any damage?

Quite a lot to the clothing and kudos of the incapable sprayers.



There's endangering the public to consider, and in any case causing permanent damage is not a criterion for unlawful behaviour.

It is for vandalism.

Is there a UK vandalism act specifying what constitutes vandalism? Under the label 'criminal damage' come crimes that do not cause permanent damage, such as smearing mud (and perhaps other semi-solids) on the walls of a police cell and spray paint on a monument both of which can be and are cleaned off.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-dam...

Anyway why not pick another offence, several unlawful acts that protesters are seen to commit have been identified to choose from.

[turbobloke]

glazbagun said:

turbobloke said:

CPS definition of terrorism:

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/terrorism

Time for another make your mind up time.

That sounds like it covers just about anything and everything that could be classed as protest by anyone. Did Blair draft that definition by any chance?

It wasn't me m'lud, and I share your view of scope.

They are well in already.

[Vizsla]

glazbagun said:

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?

Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" (yeah, I know it's mis-attributed)

XR: "First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then life goes on and you disappear without trace"

[NoNeed]

I wonder why they believe they can stop the planet warming?

[Kawasicki]

NoNeed said:

I wonder why they believe they can stop the planet warming?

'cause science

[glen ponder]

https://youtu.be/fFkN5H4CCY0

[glen ponder]

https://youtu.be/8ISePLL1wcw

[glen ponder]

Send in the troops and shoot them

[Mort7]

booboise blueboys said:

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.

What an embarrassment of a post.

What utter rubbish! I haven't insulted anyone, I've simply asked a perfectly reasonable question.

[Coolbanana]

NoNeed said:

I wonder why they believe they can stop the planet warming?

Whilst you surely jest since you cannot be that stupid, and surely aren't, some folks are actually that ignorant. They don't understand the difference between the Natural cycle and an accelerated cycle of human making that can be stopped. Weird eh?

Not too difficult to understand as you no doubt realise but, sadly, frothing ill-educated gammon-types are triggered by anything they cannot understand and start bleating uncontrollably about how wrong the Science is. Daft, but there you go. Don't worry though, they can be easily forced to tow the line.

[booboise blueboys]

Mort7 said:

What utter rubbish! I haven't insulted anyone, I've simply asked a perfectly reasonable question.

It's one of the thickest questions I've seen in a long time.

You're equating hippies sitting in the road to people who blow British citizens up. Seriously? How insulting to Brits who have been killed by terrorists.

Where is your respect?

[kev1974]

Met police officer takes us through some of the arm pipes and other objects that the ER mob are fabricating and that the boys in blue are having to cut up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF2WGNReYrY

None of it is good for the environment, or amateur; a lot of it is serious concrete, custom welded metal pipe etc. But then as more and more are waking up and recognising, none of this is really about the environment or climate is it.

I think for a day or two the Met should just back off and let them get on with it, don't bother cutting through the D-locks or pipes, just leave them glued or chained to the vehicles or roads or doors or whatever. The trouble is at the moment the cult victims know that the Met will come along and carefully remove them within an hour or so. Leave a few to stew in their self-inflicted predicaments for 24-36 hours, perhaps wheel some sort of tent over them to stop them getting drenched in the rain, and see how many sheep continue to volunteer to be locked or glued to things after that.

[NoNeed]

Coolbanana said:

NoNeed said:

I wonder why they believe they can stop the planet warming?

Whilst you surely jest since you cannot be that stupid, and surely aren't, some folks are actually that ignorant. They don't understand the difference between the Natural cycle and an accelerated cycle of human making that can be stopped. Weird eh?

Not too difficult to understand as you no doubt realise but, sadly, frothing ill-educated gammon-types are triggered by anything they cannot understand and start bleating uncontrollably about how wrong the Science is. Daft, but there you go. Don't worry though, they can be easily forced to tow the line.

charming, I ask a simple question and get abuse.

I take it you haven't a clue as you are all gammony and ill educated.

Edited by NoNeed on Tuesday 15th October 15:03

[Oilchange]

Taylor James said:

warch said:

Bloody hell that is a really well written post.

It isn't a black and white issue, despite people being stereotyped as either head in the sand fake news gammons or bonkers, leftist, cabbage bothering eco nutters. But from what I've heard they are protesting in a peaceful and fairly respectful fashion. Stanley Johnson himself said that he was most impressed with this aspect of the demonstrations.

What is black and white is environmental pollution. Although there are people who don't care about environmental pollution it is impossible to argue about plastic/oil/other contamination taking place.

What is not black and white is the human effect on climate change. Debate continues to rage around this issue.

This is why the militants like to conflate black and white with grey, often using the former to evidence the latter. It goes beyond militants and has now infected the bulk of the education system. MMGW is taught as fact alongside the discovery of plastic in whale stomachs.

This is producing a steady stream of well meaning but indoctrinated supporters of whom Greta Thunberg is the perfect poster girl.

This ^^ 'warch' is a much better written post.

As soon as you start saying things are 'fact' and 'the evidence is in' my eyes start to roll...

[valiant]

glen ponder said:

Send in the troops and shoot them

Ahh, a pacifist I see...

[kev1974]

booboise blueboys said:

Mort7 said:

What utter rubbish! I haven't insulted anyone, I've simply asked a perfectly reasonable question.

It's one of the thickest questions I've seen in a long time.

You're equating hippies sitting in the road to people who blow British citizens up. Seriously? How insulting to Brits who have been killed by terrorists.

Where is your respect?

It's not a stupid question. The hippies in the road are just the gullible sheep junior cult members who are easily led and so who still believe ER is about climate change. It's quite clear that the ER cult leaders are capable of much more and I'd say it's a perfectly valid question to wonder whether they will soon stray from simple inconvenience to the public, to something much worse, I don't see it as that much of a stretch that they might do that, at all. They're already happy to destroy property, witness hammer muppet this morning, the dhead clambering on top of an airplane who could have kicked a sensor, or the clowns on the fire engine the week before last. Not much of a leap from damaging to destroying property to destroying lives as well.