Terrorists' vandalising Stone Henge and trying to force govt policy

There's a third option that you haven't mentioned.

Pain now because of this stupid shit, then the same pain later on because it hasn't actually changed anything.

The trouble with this 'direct action' is it causes a huge amount of disruption/cost/damage/ill feeling without actually achieving anything as JSO are not providing alternatives/answers/doing anything positive to stop our reliance on oil.
Yes, chuck your paint on a snooker table, wear your t shirts with slogans, sit cross legged in the road and get arrested. But 'bringing it to people's attention' isn't solving the problem. Its lazy activism, maximum distuption for minimal effort. We can all shout and stamp our feet but my respect goes to the scientists/engineers actually trying to do something about it.

It'll become more extreme until something changes.

Whatever happens, things will change.

It's a question of pain now or pain later.

But it achieved NOTHING. Beyond getting in the papers and further clogging up the overstrained justice system.

"Something must be done. This is something, let's do this". Pointless.

It. Will. Not. Help. Prattle about raising awareness all you like, but hard, thankless, un 'heroic', behind the scenes political work gets it done. Not grandstanding. Or marches and St. Chris Packham.

So it took place after the Stonehenge incident, after all this discussion that it inspired, and yet the march still didn't get much coverage or make an impact.

Your point is basically that something is needed. I agree. It doesn't follow that JSO is this something, and it's absolutely possible for people to get so pissed off that they actually make things worse. You can clearly see how that might be the case when it comes to blocking oil refineries, so that does mean you have to also apply the same principle when it comes to direct action that you approve of.

How many are aware of the march in London for nature & biodiversity which took place this weekend ? Chris Packham was there.

I’ve really only seen coverage of it inside my “green bubble”, barely a mention in the news.

And this for me is why JSO is needed, to boost the issue up the agenda and stir emotions. The gloves have to be off at some point, and even nice people spraying orange cornstarch still isn’t gloves-off enough.

When people say their tactics are putting people off and that they should target oil companies HQs, they don’t seem to compute that will also put people off. A significantly disruptive presence blocking or damaging a refinery or gas terminal will also piss people off because the resulting fuel shortages will once more impact their convenience.

Whether it is or isn’t, it’s right.

I think that’s called grasping at straws.

Clearly

They were approached and you can see what happened, it’s on video

You are deeply wrong in your interpretation of the FBI definition. Section A of the same definition, visible right above, says:

> involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

So action has to be firstly, violent or dangerous, secondly illegal and thirdly intimidatory or coercive to be classified as terrorism.

What would the protesters have done if approached by members of the public trying to stop them ?

Come now. Did ChatGPT write that ?

As you wish, and on this i stand corrected for the orange paint:

While Just Stop Oil’s methods are disruptive and intended to influence government policy, classifying them as terrorists under the Terrorism Act 2000 would require proving that their actions create a serious risk to public health or safety or involve significant disruption. Given that spraying orange powder is not typically seen as causing serious harm or risk, it is unlikely to meet the threshold for terrorism as defined by the law.

However, if their actions were to escalate to more dangerous or disruptive methods, or if their activities were part of a broader campaign that included serious threats or violence, then a stronger argument could be made. For now, labelling them as terrorists under the current legal framework might be an overreach and could undermine legitimate forms of protest and civil disobedience.

I don't think it's terrorism, just vandalism. They wouldn't dare do it in other countries. Tell them to go and vandalise that black cube thing in Mecca and see the attention that gets them and their cause.

Can you explain how spraying orange powder over stuff is legally classed as intimidation or coercion of the British government?

unless im mi5 and have access to extra information then i dont know, but is certainly a consideration to consider that the group are puppets for other groups

you may not consider it, but the law says different and their actions are guilty of this = intimidation and coercion.

how do you also justify what they do vandalism. restricting traffic and blocking roads etc,

bottom line is their groups actions as defined by law = terrorism methods and actions of a terrorist

Look it up. What do they have to gain? Who could be pulling the strings?

Yes. Peaceful direct action.

I do not consider spraying orange powder on stuff intimidation or coercion of government.They are highlighting their issue in an eye catching, non violent way.

They are not terrorists. They're not even proper graffiti vandals.

We only presume That's the only goal of JSO, whos to say they are not being funded by other groups for other objectives/reasons etc

They didn’t damage it. Gone in the next rain.

Damaging the one and only planet we can survive on, to the extent that we can no longer survive on it is far far worse - a billion times worse.

JSO are trying to get governments to listen in the face of the current lot allowing more fossil fuels to be extracted. The current government are in the pockets of the oil companies and they have f’d us over and left us extremely vulnerable.

Things are going to get pretty awful and more quickly than we thought. We will literally be unable to grow food on a huge proportion of the globe leading to mass migration, more wars, more instability. More deaths from extreme weather events. More people suffering diseases and illness due to extremes of weather, more people displaced by fires and floods (leading to further destruction of ecosystems and increasing climate chaos).

It’s fucking dire and at least they are doing something and if I could afford to get arrested and sent to prison without it ruining my DC life then I’d be joining them.

For the record I’m a middle class, middle aged, boring, professional and mum who has never been in trouble with the law and who likes nothing more than walking, gardening and coffee with friends. I couldn’t be further from a ‘crusty’, ‘hippy, ‘Eco zealot’ or any of the other grossly pejorative terms used to stereotype and degrade people that live their values and care about this stuff.

I don't know but damaging Stonehenge is not the answer.

I think what’s nuttier is that we are facing extinction, we know why, we have known for decades, we have known and still know what to do about it, but we don’t. That’s got to be insanity.

When governments continue to ignore the dangers, even when it’s right there happening in front of you, and don’t take action, and you’ve exhausted all other options, I think the only sane action is direct action. It’s like the suffragettes, low key campaigning was tried and tried and finally they had enough and started direct action. What else is there?

Lots of people aren’t even changing their individual habits yet alone campaigning - that’s insanity. Doing the things, repeatedly, that you know will likely kill you and your loved ones.