Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Just Stop Oil



Nixonator

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2016
6,735
Shoreham Beach
But a discussion isn't being had. It's more or less universally acknowledged that we need to cut fossil fuel emissions and the government is supposedly working towards a surely impractical solution (we will find out); what JSO is saying but not discussing is that we should stop getting any oil at all from the North Sea and import it from further afield. Which IMO is a stupid opinion, and one they are only going for because it's catchy and which they will be able to use for a long time because it's impractical.

You can guarantee that if the government called their bluff and said they were going to import all the oil (without reducing consumption), they would change their campaign - they wouldn't go away believing they have achieved their objective. But it's harder to get popular support and/or attention if they claimed their objective was to do what is already being done, but they want it done faster.
It's almost as if you are suggesting they are protesting for the sake of protesting?

Surely not ???
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,471
yeah, 60,000 protesters - not a peep. 40,000 asylum seekers - 24/7 news coverage.

And the media portray the protestors as enemies of the people with journalists attacking them in a similar style to workers on strike to turn the public against them. Shame not more people rise above rather than follow the narrative
the media reflect the public dislike of a certain type of protest. don't know why that's difficult to accept, the public view, just because you agree with the cause and method others don't. shown by the lack of media interest in the larger organized marches, people do accept them so there's no outrage about them.
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,217
If they're reporting that JCB is linked to pollution and climate denial because they build houses and factories, and the people who live and work in houses and factories are responsible for some of the UK's greenhouse gases, they're getting just a bit tenuous. Surely by that logic, every single supporter of every political party - except perhaps a few very dedicated Greens - is linked to pollution and cllmate denial?

(Though we could ask, who are these people who are denying the climate?)
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,246
Can a democracy run effectively when the politcal parties involved rely so much on donations?
Surely in any other are accepting donations would be seen as a conflict of interest?

Local council workers are not even allowed to accepts gifts at Christmas from suppliers and subcontractors, yet political parties can take millions from groups with a vested interest.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,846
West is BEST
Can a democracy run effectively when the politcal parties involved rely so much on donations?
Surely in any other are accepting donations would be seen as a conflict of interest?

Local council workers are not even allowed to accepts gifts at Christmas from suppliers and subcontractors, yet political parties can take millions from groups with a vested interest.
It can’t and it doesn’t.

We don’t live in a democracy. Nobody does.
 






sydney

tinky ****in winky
Jul 11, 2003
17,800
town full of eejits
What is your definition of democracy? Dictionary definitions of democracy tend to suggest we live in one.
you may currently be experiencing democracy of some sort but the covid SOE should worry the heck out of anyone with half a brain , also having 30% of your wages taken off you to subsidise causes you disagree with is far from democratic.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,846
West is BEST
What is your definition of democracy? Dictionary definitions of democracy tend to suggest we live in one.
One interpretation of a democracy would be that the party that the majority of the electorate wish to form a government, form a government.

Another would be a situation wherein we don’t pay taxes to an unelected family of super rich people who have taken vast swathes of land and property for their exclusive use and who refuse to disclose their tax and business affairs to a population they purport to “selflessly serve”.

Or perhaps a government that abides by the laws of the land and doesn’t try to change them as and when it suits them .


Or a country where we don’t arrest people on the grounds of their potential to cause a nuisance?

We live in a democracy? I’d be more willing to believe we live in Atlantis.
 




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,217
One interpretation of a democracy would be that the party that the majority of the electorate wish to form a government, form a government.

Another would be a situation wherein we don’t pay taxes to an unelected family of super rich people who have taken vast swathes of land and property for their exclusive use and who refuse to disclose their tax and business affairs to a population they purport to “selflessly serve”.

Or perhaps a government that abides by the laws of the land and doesn’t try to change them as and when it suits them .


Or a country where we don’t arrest people on the grounds of their potential to cause a nuisance?

We live in a democracy? I’d be more willing to believe we live in Atlantis.
Definition 1 is no use. We haven't had a party win a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the electorate, for donkey's years.

Definition 2 is dubious. I don't really think it can count as undemocratic to have a King unless the population has voted against it. Personal wealth isn't anti-democratic, going against the will of the people is anti-democratic. If you personally don't like the will of the people, tough. That's democracy.

Definition 3 is nonsense. I suspect that what you say isn't what you meant to say. Of course the government can change the law - that's its job. Try again.

Definition 4 - let's see how it goes. I think it's fine to arrest people carrying orange powder before they spread it all over where they're going to spread it; you don't. There can be little objection in principle to arresting someone who is intending to commit an illegal act before they have actually done it, as I'm sure you would agree if someone was pointing a bow and arrow at you. How far it will be taken, we will see.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,846
West is BEST
Definition 1 is no use. We haven't had a party win a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the electorate, for donkey's years.

Definition 2 is dubious. I don't really think it can count as undemocratic to have a King unless the population has voted against it. Personal wealth isn't anti-democratic, going against the will of the people is anti-democratic. If you personally don't like the will of the people, tough. That's democracy.

Definition 3 is nonsense. I suspect that what you say isn't what you meant to say. Of course the government can change the law - that's its job. Try again.

Definition 4 - let's see how it goes. I think it's fine to arrest people carrying orange powder before they spread it all over where they're going to spread it; you don't. There can be little objection in principle to arresting someone who is intending to commit an illegal act before they have actually done it, as I'm sure you would agree if someone was pointing a bow and arrow at you. How far it will be taken, we will see.
Of course that’s what you think.

It doesn’t matter how long it’s gone that way. Doesn’t make it democratic.

A government is supposed to change laws in the interests of its citizens, not in its own interests. This government also ignores the laws of the land.

The fact we haven’t had a vote makes it undemocratic.

We’ve seen how far it will be taken. They arrested a woman standing near a protest, a man holding up a blank card and several journalists for covering the protest.

We don’t live in a democracy.
 
Last edited:


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,217
you may currently be experiencing democracy of some sort but the covid SOE should worry the heck out of anyone with half a brain , also having 30% of your wages taken off you to subsidise causes you disagree with is far from democratic.
Who is taking 30% of your wages? Unless you're talking about taxes, then you're being robbed and you should tell the police. And you clearly aren't talking about taxes.
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,246
Definition 1 is no use. We haven't had a party win a majority of the votes, let alone a majority of the electorate, for donkey's years.

Definition 2 is dubious. I don't really think it can count as undemocratic to have a King unless the population has voted against it. Personal wealth isn't anti-democratic, going against the will of the people is anti-democratic. If you personally don't like the will of the people, tough. That's democracy.

Definition 3 is nonsense. I suspect that what you say isn't what you meant to say. Of course the government can change the law - that's its job. Try again.

Definition 4 - let's see how it goes. I think it's fine to arrest people carrying orange powder before they spread it all over where they're going to spread it; you don't. There can be little objection in principle to arresting someone who is intending to commit an illegal act before they have actually done it, as I'm sure you would agree if someone was pointing a bow and arrow at you. How far it will be taken, we will see.

I would totally disagree that someone should be arrested for carrying organge powder.

The morality around arresting people for intent is complex and rather terrifying depending on the situation. It is also very hard to prove. Very hard to work out where to draw the line too.

To suggest there can be little objection to this notion is disingenuous today the least. There is huge objection to it, which is why it has not been law for so long. The grey areas and nuance of the whole idea make it impossible to pass legislation in all but a small minority of areas.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,217
I would totally disagree that someone should be arrested for carrying organge powder.

The morality around arresting people for intent is complex and rather terrifying depending on the situation. It is also very hard to prove. Very hard to work out where to draw the line too.

To suggest there can be little objection to this notion is disingenuous today the least. There is huge objection to it, which is why it has not been law for so long. The grey areas and nuance of the whole idea make it impossible to pass legislation in all but a small minority of areas.
It's a matter of timing. They can surely arrest the man who is climbing on to the snooker table with his orange bag in his hand, without waiting for him to chuck it. When does the period they arrest him for the intent, start?
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,846
West is BEST
It's a matter of timing. They can surely arrest the man who is climbing on to the snooker table with his orange bag in his hand, without waiting for him to chuck it. When does the period they arrest him for the intent, start?

Your bow and arrow example. Of course you arrest someone who is pointing it at someone else. That’s an immediate threat. Has been under section 3 of the criminal law act since 1983.

Of course you arrest someone climbing on a snooker table with powder.

What is not on is to arrest and charge someone in the vicinity of the snooker hall who happens to be carrying a bag of turmeric or some powder paint. Which the new laws allow.

The law surrounding these situations used to proportionate to the threat. I don’t believe it is anymore. Each case should be dealt with on its own presentation.
 
Last edited:


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,471
I would totally disagree that someone should be arrested for carrying organge powder.

The morality around arresting people for intent is complex and rather terrifying depending on the situation. It is also very hard to prove. Very hard to work out where to draw the line too.

To suggest there can be little objection to this notion is disingenuous today the least. There is huge objection to it, which is why it has not been law for so long. The grey areas and nuance of the whole idea make it impossible to pass legislation in all but a small minority of areas.
there are specific offences around this, been around for decades. you can be arrested for carrying a knife, or something as mundane as a screwdriver, if suspect intention to commit crime. no one rational questions the morallity of police identifying a suspicious person then acting to preventing an offense occuring. new laws have been more about being explict where existing law is woolly, and new offense of locking on.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,846
West is BEST
there are specific offences around this, been around for decades. you can be arrested for carrying a knife, or something as mundane as a screwdriver, if suspect intention to commit crime. no one rational questions the morallity of police identifying a suspicious person then acting to preventing an offense occuring. new laws have been more about being explict where existing law is woolly, and new offense of locking on.
I respectfully disagree that the law has previously been wooly.

My take on it is that the law allowed for each case to be assessed on its own “merits” or presentation.

There have always been laws in place to remove or mitigate threats. But there was some dispensation for law enforcers to interpret and act on those threats with proportionality and judgment. Or certainly the law allowed for an individual to explain their presentation. And to a large degree there still is. But now the law also allows for arbitrary arrest for suspicion of intent, whether or not the individual being accused has a reasonable explanation for their actions. To explain their intent.

Having said that, I personally don’t think the majority of police will abuse the new laws and instead will act reasonably. Possibly naive, considering the grounds for arrest that were demonstrated at the recent coronation. And indeed even before the laws were passed. I’m thinking of the vigil held for Sarah Everard, the victim of Wayne Couzins.

We have mitigating circumstances for crimes as serious as murder; Spousal abuse, self defence, mental capacity.
The new law potentially removes the possibility of mitigating circumstance for low level “crimes” such as being present at a protest or the journalistic coverage of a demonstration.

The fact that the law now exists to detain and charge members of the public for “suspicion of intent” doesn’t sit well with me because as the two examples above show, the new laws can and do result in the arrest of people for merely being present at a rally or demonstration. It also allows for the total shutdown of peaceful protest.

Never a good idea.
 
Last edited:


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
18,574
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Your bow and arrow example. Of course you arrest someone who is pointing it at someone else. That’s an immediate threat. Has been under section 3 of the criminal law act since 1983.

Of course you arrest someone climbing on a snooker table with powder.

What is not on is to arrest and charge someone in the vicinity of the snooker hall who happens to be carrying a bag of turmeric or some powder paint. Which the new laws allow.

The law surrounding these situations used to proportionate to the threat. I don’t believe it is anymore. Each case should be dealt with on its own presentation.
Or, as per the recent coronation, arresting someone for standing in the vicinity of someone who happens to be carrying a bag of powder paint.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here