Cressida Gething missing bro's wedding

The mums interview very much gave vibes of but but but it doesn't happen to families like ours 🥲

Also that it's not JSO' "fault" that people declare themselves 'put off' from engaging with the climate issue: it's likely to have an immense impact on our lives in the decades to come, surely we should be interested on these grounds alone?

It actually is when JSO are the ones creating extremely negative feelings in people around taking action to combat climate change.

Sorry, JSO doesn’t get to do this and them absolve themselves of responsibility for this.

This is exactly my point. If you want people to find out about your cause you have to get them on your side so they interested in finding out more.

If you piss people off, they exactly will think, as you say, ‘Tossers’ and tune out.

But your post does very much illustrates the utter arrogance of JSO. That you think they can both set themselves against the public, cause them harm and piss them off, and them think you have a right to chastise the public for not spending their time googling you. Pissing people off and then chastising them when they are pissed off for still not cooperating with you! Good God! Do you genuinely not understand that you can’t hate people into cooperating with you?

I suggest you spend a bit more time understanding basic human nature, because humans just don’t work the way you want them to. Riling against that will get you nowhere. If you want to influence people, you have to understand how to get them onside cooperative with you.

But JSO's objective is not to educate the public, so it's not "not working".

My comment was to *SlantedRoof" who said:
"They distract from the message because people are so pissed off with JSO they focus on how pissed off they are, not on the message."

I'm just pointing out that it's weird to either write something off or criticise something that one hasn't troubled oneself to find out about.

Also that it's not JSO' "fault" that people declare themselves 'put off' from engaging with the climate issue: it's likely to have an immense impact on our lives in the decades to come, surely we should be interested on these grounds alone?

@IllMetByMoonlight No , most people aren’t bothered about educating themselves as a result of the protests, so it proves their actions don’t work.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/29351268/undercover-just-stop-oil-plot-m25/amp/ www.thesun.co.uk/news/29351268/undercover-just-stop-oil-plot-m25/amp/]]]]

Interesting article about an JSO and a journalist infiltrator. The organisation is likened to a cult in the article.

And how many mothers would feel protective if their daughter was imprisoned

@slantedroof, and this is the great pity, isn't it? I suspect lots of people haven't heard of the oil licencing agreements despite regular prime time reporting on most major media channels, as part of the news for the last couple of years.

Yet, when faced with the frankly perplexing decision of a group of people to climb the M25 gantries, unfurling a banner with the apparently incoherent phrase 'Just Stop Oil'; most people don't seem to feel curious or have an impulse to Google what this could possibly be about: the JSO homepage is a very accessible, concise 3-sentence statement of what they hope to achieve. That ought to clear things up in about one minute, one would think. ("I mean, these guys clearly think it's important enough to go to quite extreme lengths, oh, and it seems to have something to do with the climate... well, that definitely concerns me and my family's future, so I'd better look it up".)

But is that not our responsibility, to find out and inform ourselves? Instead, people seem to think "Tossers ‐I'm tuning out." Like people have a sense that they can make informed judgements without actually being informed.

Wow, just heard the Mum’s speech. I can see where Cressida gets arrogant sense of moral certainty from. No acknowledgement of the harm caused to others. No care or concern or compassion for those her daughter caused harm to. Just a rigid certainty that they are the good guys, fuck the people they impacted, and bad guys have done them wrong. Wow.

The talk of throwing paint at the wedding is because that’s precisely what Just Stop Oil protesters tried to do at a high profile society wedding in Chester.

There's an article in todays Sunday Times about another of the five. A Mum who wouldn't harm anyone. This is a group of people with resources and media connections, or at least access them.

Was this really the best way they had to achieve their stated aims by getting politicians to change their plans? Or was it a way to punish a mass of people who didn't sufficiently share their total commitment to the cause?

But the same people are condemning her for protesting, yet think it's OK to suggest throwing paint at someone's wedding. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. It's nonsensical.

But it might stop JSO from doing this again. If one of their own gets targeted, they might think twice about blocking roads in future.

I wonder how many JSO members would continue to block an ambulance if they found out one of their own family members was inside.

Peaceful protest does not mean harmful protest. JSOs protest caused many harms of many types. It’s rightfully illegal. Your stance that anyone, for any cause, can cause any amount of harm and disruption they choose, is rightfully illegal.

This does not affect anyone’s right to free speech or genuinely peaceful actions.

I can't believe her mother had the audacity to whine about her criminal daughter. Wonder what cars her parent's drive?

@NotTerfNorCis Yes, not easy for the family. You don’t expect nicely educated, musical, Oxbridge daughters to end up in jail. It’ll be way out of their comfort zone ( although the brother wedding comment was a bit of a faux pas in retrospect). Not only are they having to get used to their daughter being in jail, but the (safe) path that was mapped out for Cressida has now been ruined.

Maybe that’s why she rebelled. Life was too easy and safe for her. She wanted some excitement in her life.

I voted YABU because the mother is obviously going through a kind of grief. She's trying to humanise her daughter and get her critics to see her (and the family) as real people. In that context, the word 'moan' seems cruel.

Fuck about & find out 🤷🏻‍♀️

Nice try. It’s obviously because of the video about the wedding her Mum posted. If the mum of a man had done that, he’d be getting the flack.

They distract from the message because people are so pissed off with JSO they focus on how pissed off they are, not on the message.

For example I have never heard of oil license renewals so the stupid stunt failed to highlight that because everyone was focused on the dangerous, harmful disruption JSO caused. Not the JSOs alleged message.

People don’t need to go home and burn more fuel. People need to change their behaviour to consume less fuel. But no-one co-operates with someone who’s against them. Disrupting the public going about their day to day business, causes emotional harm, practical harm, material and financial harm and both causes and risks causing real physical harm including risk of death to the public, means JSO are positioning themselves as against the public. I repeat, no one cooperates with those who are against them. People are far less likely to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint when they associate that with their extremely negative feelings about self styled climate warriors like JSO

Its also a fantastically stupid stunt that releases more carbon into the atmosphere, not just from idling cars but from the many people who will have had to repeat their failed journey another day.

Sorry buy not sorry, she shouldn't have done it.

To use an old Army expression, with apologies for any offence caused, My heart pumps purple {expletive deleted} piss for them both.

Noble (I really admire your excellent work on bringing injustices in education to people's attention here on MN, btw!), I don't think they're a sideshow at all. Nor a distraction.

De-carbonisation is a multifaceted problem which is being tackled on many fronts. As I'm sure you know, climate activists have been plugging away for close to half a century trying to raise awareness of the dangers of unchecked carbon emissions. For decades, it was considered a niche area of scientific research with scant funding and portrayed by the fossil fuel lobby as irrelevant and crankish (similar to the efforts of tobacco companies to discredit medical research linking smoking to cancer and respiratory poor health).

The public may have been aware of the growing threat posed by 'global warming' but not necessarily believed there was much point in trying to do anything about it, so happy to defer to 'scientists working on it behind the scenes'.

In the spring of 2019, XR and Fridays for Future with Greta Thunberg jointly created a new space in the public and media awareness for climate activism through civil disobedience, a key part of which relied on disruption to the judiciary. The Overton Window was shifted, climate emergency was declared by the UK government and across local authorities up and down the country who crafted carbon policies to reflect this, corporations became visibly pro-active about their carbon policies (even if, as some employees on MN emphatically state, this pre-dates any climate activist pressure), global insurance companies became transparent about policies pertaining to sea-level rise and anticipated logistical issues arising from resource-scarcity as a result of a changing climate.

These are just some of the changes which I believe were brought about by the increased visibility of climate activism through civil disobedience. Of course, the climate scientists were always working away behind the scenes and, crucially, trying to raise the alarm, but just didn't have a big enough platform. Now, with collective attention firmly fixed on the climate emergency and the wide acknowledgement that a transition to renewables is necessary if multi-billion dollar losses are to be avoided, not to mention human life and biodiversity, there is ample funding for new science and technology, as big financial gains are ripe for (not so) early adaptors.

I think blocking roads is a peaceful protest and has been for many hundreds of years. Recent legislation may have changed whether that is legally the case, I'm not sure. Sadly I don't set the law but that is my personal opinion. I also think the protesters would have been aware of the law and were prepared to break it anyway, though they were expecting a more lenient sentence (as was everybody I think). So it's a difficult balance, there must be some laws around protest to protect safety, but it has often been the case, as seen with suffragettes, civil right protesters, anti apartheid protesters, and in my opinion climate protesters and pro Palestinian protesters, that government's have used the law (and in this case changed a long standing law) unfairly and unjustly to prevent protests against their interests. I believe this is what is happening here, I will be interested to see what the appeal brings, and as I said before I think history will judge it very differently from today's mumsnetters. However, in all the situations I mention here I have absolute respect, admiration and gratitude for those who have been willing to knowingly risk arrest for those causes. Protests are complicated. I assume you would like to keep the vote for women and have no wish for apartheid to return to South Africa, yet had you been around at the time you would no doubt be condemning the very protests which achieved those things, which were violent and unlawful.

A poster on one JSO thread, ** I think, posted about how her (?) DH works in the roll-out and logistics of game-changing low-carbon tech and solutions (I hope I've got this right). This is what we all need to get behind and demand investment and research into ‐there are some brilliant minds working on extraordinary innovations‐ instead of sniggering at the perceived just deserts of others and taking down someone's mum.

So these protests are a sideshow and a distraction from the real work on tackling climate change?

But you said 'Unfortunately yes, that's what living in a free democratic society with the right to free speech and peaceful protest means.' when I suggested that if it was ok for climate change protesters and Gaza protesters to block the M25 then it meant that Tommy Robinson and other protestors should be allowed to as well.

So do you think that blocking the M25 is peaceful protest and should be allowed for all, or is it not peaceful protest and shouldn't be allowed for any?

No, I agree there should be laws around what is allowed and what constitutes peaceful, not sure why you would think otherwise. I also think the previous government's attempts to criminalise legitimate peaceful protests should make us all scared. Labour are planning to reverse those changes and I hope they do. I'm not sure this ruling was fair or even just, the appeal will be interesting. I find the vitriol directed towards these protesters from mumsnet quite depressing though.