Disruptive protests clampdown.

[malificent7]

I am torn. I am worried that this will erode our rights to peaceful protest but don't agree with blocking ambulances.

I think this government will use this as an excuse to clamp don on civil unrest that THEY have caused.

What do you think?

@PurpleParrotfish inkmagine there are lots of ways to get people to listen which don’t include stopping ambulances getting to hospital

these people are zealots - they’d be the first to arrive at public hangings

I'm not sure at all it's a good idea. I can see everything being recategorised as disruptive.

I wonder if people against disruptive protests know what the Suffragettes did to win women the right to vote.

Iirc they do get arrested for damage - so damaging property is not legal ie frame of painting

The protests where there is disruption but no damage is glueing self to road or milk I don’t know it’s a hard one

It was political argument that won the day overall. Not just the protests.

And while its not a competition as such, the suffragettes were arguing for their own rights, not arguing about something that someone is buying/eating.

I'm often confused at climate protesters who disrupt traffic/block bus lanes/glue themselves to trains etc. The result of this (apart from inconveniencing people) is that traffic will take longer to get from a to b = more pollution, bus lane blocked or trains not running = people would likely use a taxi/uber = less environmentally friendly than their original mode of transport. Traffic waiting while being blocked = lots of emissions in one place. Glueing themselves to a road/throwing paint at buildings or roads = more chemicals etc being used to unglued them/clear up mess. How is this helping their cause?

Because they're attempting to bring about major changes on a nationwide scale to reduce energy use for the indefinite future, which far outstrip a few hours' worth of increased emissions caused by a blocked road.

The political argument was considered immoral/a big joke until they took direct action.

I suppose the protesters believe everyone will benefit from preventing the destruction of the ecosystem, including themselves and their children and grandchildren.

Because they're attempting to bring about major changes on a nationwide scale to reduce energy use for the indefinite future, which far outstrip a few hours' worth of increased emissions caused by a blocked road.

But what do they want/expect to happen as a direct result of their action? No single action is going to have any sort of instant immediate effect on climate change. There are long term plans to reduce carbon emissions/bring in low emissions zones etc but none of these, even if implemented tomorrow, is going yo have an instant impact.
And I think anyone affected by the protest on the Dartford bridge will tell you that's more than "a few hours" of extra emissions.

It's an erosion of democracy full stop.

Have you read any of the statements the groups have released regarding their direct actions? You might find them informative.

Yes these are stunts to get noticed, which in a sane world wouldn't be where protest was at.
BUT in this insane world no media outlet, political party or indeed government is looking at these issues seriously....they are all influenced by their own short-term gains.

Thus to garner any notice at all, people have to take part in outrageous stunts. Any inconvenience/damage is infintensibly miniscule compared to what is to come if we dont start listening and more importantly acting on climate change.
I for one, applaud the protestors.

For starters

Do you know how long research and development of new energy takes ?

Then how long to change over to the new developed energy and for it to be safe to use ?

when industry started using the fossils fuels, humanity did not realise how much of an effect they would be with the environment

Ect

What do protesters gain by protesting about issues when if they are knowledgeable about what they are protesting about then they would know all about the research and development of energy efficiency technology, they would listen and read about the current research and development to combat climate change, etc

Or let me guess, has their research consisted of them reading one or two newspaper articles or YouTube videos, ?

And at the same time, the groups may have a better impact debating properly e.g. Through their mp, etc, otherwise the gov't just makes more laws to lockem up ect

Not at the expense of risking potential lives of others, the great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Machiavelli, etc, would be very disappointed.

Basically gives the gov't more reasons to lockem up.

Two wrongs does not make a right.

Yep, very well said, how many would be the first in line, to actually be more eco friendly, and follow the philosophy they advocate.

Peaceful protests, I am in favour of.

People who vandalise property and deliberately cause the maximum possible disruption to the lives of ordinary members of the public, block emergency vehicles, chain themselves to the gates of oil refineries, climb onto high bridges and whatever else, not so much.

Antagonising the very people whose support you need in order for your campaign to be a success is just downright stupid.

We all know that most of them are just anarchists doing it for shits and giggles anyway, and will piggyback onto any cause going.

My worry is this legislation is also going to include unions, marches and strikes.

I don't like vague law. Which is what I expect it will be. Enforced more zealously if there is overtime for police in it.

The problem is that climate protesters have been peacefully protesting for a couple of decades and not much has changed.

You can see and feel that we're in a more rapid phase of climate change now. We were at 40 degrees c in the UK this year, decades before that was modelled. The science is showing faster and worse changes to ecosystems.

These climate protesters are just asking for basic mitigation measures that international bodies like the UN agree with. How much better off would we be today if we had actually insulated Britain? Renewables are so much cheaper now, Just Stop Oil are simply asking for no new fossil fuel licenses - something France, Spain, Denmark and Ireland have already done.

The joke is on us that our government is so against sustainable prosperity!

You are incredibly naive if you dont understand the route that votes for women followed.

The bill was first introduced by a man, direct action took place over a small number of years out of the whole campaign and actually lost them support in parliament over those short years and lost them sympathy with the public. The issue around suffrage was also mixed up with votes for men

The thing that changed was the war and the lack of available votes from men

Dont fool yourself that people looked at the starving and beaten suffragists and gave us the vote out of sympathy.

And your comparison about what is being fought for is flawed anyway. Women didnt have the vote at all, not some of them, none of them

They were arguing for something that didnt exist at all

These protestors are causing damage and domestic terrorism for things that already do exist, there is a reduction in UK emissions and has been for decades, there are plans and actions in terms of further emissions cuts, there are increasing levels of renewable energy, there is further investment in green technologies, there are huge tax payer subsidies for it. These things exist and are in place already.

This is just a question, but if the protesters were classed as domestic terrorists, then would the option of gitmo, be viable ?

again just a hypothetical question.

Every year the world we live in gets a bit closer to that book by Ben Elton, blind faith.

It is shocking to me everything that has happened in the last few years and everything that is still happening.