|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 1, 2023 10:20:20 GMT
When are you replying to my posts to explain how the below video is terrorism? How would you describe an organisation that frequently breaks the law, is highly politicised, brings part of the nation to a standstill on a daily basis, prevents innocent people from going about their daily lives, and prevents innocent people from going to hospitals for treatment while putting innocent people at risk of fatal incidents whenever they block roads? Mark my words, it's a matter of time until something incredibly happens off the back of the reckless actions of these clowns. They are only just getting started and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending them. I counter your carefully selected video with the video Crouchie has just posted. How would you feel if that was you in the van and you urgently needed to see a member of your family who was unwell or for whatever reason needed your attention immediately? Or perhaps you had an urgent appointment at work that was critical to saving someone's life or improving your life? Would you be defending them then? They are terrorists and should be dealt with severely. And in answer to your first paragraph, I would describe the organisations as His Majesty’s Government under the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 1, 2023 10:36:06 GMT
A few dorks nearly taken out Take a bow that man.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jun 1, 2023 10:38:13 GMT
How would you describe an organisation that frequently breaks the law, is highly politicised, brings part of the nation to a standstill on a daily basis, prevents innocent people from going about their daily lives, and prevents innocent people from going to hospitals for treatment while putting innocent people at risk of fatal incidents whenever they block roads? Mark my words, it's a matter of time until something incredibly happens off the back of the reckless actions of these clowns. They are only just getting started and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending them. I counter your carefully selected video with the video Crouchie has just posted. How would you feel if that was you in the van and you urgently needed to see a member of your family who was unwell or for whatever reason needed your attention immediately? Or perhaps you had an urgent appointment at work that was critical to saving someone's life or improving your life? Would you be defending them then? They are terrorists and should be dealt with severely. Yes, you’ve convinced me. In fact, I hear Isis will be filming them throwing orange paint on themselves in front of their victims rather than beheading them in future. That is the way to spread terror… Pretty small minded to think terrorists have to blow the fuck out of people or behead someone. - Damage to property, check. - Endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action), check. - Creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, check.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 1, 2023 10:52:23 GMT
Do these protestors realise that backed up traffic will be releasing emissions, and that the contractors' vans who have to travel to sites to clean up their paint don't run on fairy dust (and the chemicals required to clean up paint aren't unicorn tears either)?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 1, 2023 10:59:21 GMT
Do these protestors realise that backed up traffic will be releasing emissions, and that the contractors' vans who have to travel to sites to clean up their paint don't run on fairy dust? Do you realise that's not what they are protesting about, emissions etc. ? Their main aim is to stop the government issuing new consents and licensing agreements related to the development, exploration, and production of oil
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jun 1, 2023 11:23:23 GMT
Yes, you’ve convinced me. In fact, I hear Isis will be filming them throwing orange paint on themselves in front of their victims rather than beheading them in future. That is the way to spread terror… Pretty small minded to think terrorists have to blow the fuck out of people or behead someone. - Damage to property, check. - Endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action), check. - Creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, check. Have you made up your own definition of terrorism to suit? I think unlawful violence is the main constituent. The only people advocating unlawful violence on this thread are on the other side of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 1, 2023 11:32:42 GMT
Do these protestors realise that backed up traffic will be releasing emissions, and that the contractors' vans who have to travel to sites to clean up their paint don't run on fairy dust? Do you realise that's not what they are protesting about, emissions etc. ? Their main aim is to stop the government issuing new consents and licensing agreements related to the development, exploration, and production of oil Yes but don't they all affect the environment?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jun 1, 2023 12:09:04 GMT
Pretty small minded to think terrorists have to blow the fuck out of people or behead someone. - Damage to property, check. - Endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action), check. - Creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, check. Have you made up your own definition of terrorism to suit? I think unlawful violence is the main constituent. The only people advocating unlawful violence on this thread are on the other side of the argument. Nope those three points along with various other points constitute the definition of UK terrorism from the UK governnment website.😊
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jun 1, 2023 12:15:38 GMT
Have you made up your own definition of terrorism to suit? I think unlawful violence is the main constituent. The only people advocating unlawful violence on this thread are on the other side of the argument. Nope those three points along with various other points constitute the definition of UK terrorism from the UK governnment website.😊 Not really, violence is the main component. Anyway as you said yourself they are a bunch of middle class mummy's boys and girls and pensioners. If that's what fills you with "terror" fair enough 🤣. Perhaps if they were a proper terrorist group or a paramilitary then you might not be advocating running them over. Terrorist my arse 😉
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 1, 2023 12:23:50 GMT
A few dorks nearly taken out Take a bow that man. You really do have to wonder at the mentality of the kind of person who likes the idea of someone being run over...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 1, 2023 12:34:52 GMT
A few dorks nearly taken out Take a bow that man. It's worrying that you and those that "liked" your post think that running someone over is an accepatable option.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 1, 2023 13:02:11 GMT
Run over? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 1, 2023 13:13:15 GMT
It's worrying that you and those that "liked" your post think that running someone over is an accepatable option. He was going about his business. Law breakers were trying to stop him. It’s worrying times when criminals get support. Although I expect nothing less from some of the constant bed wetters on this board.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 1, 2023 13:15:03 GMT
You really do have to wonder at the mentality of the kind of person who likes the idea of someone being run over... Change your sheets flower.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 1, 2023 13:30:04 GMT
Do you realise that's not what they are protesting about, emissions etc. ? Their main aim is to stop the government issuing new consents and licensing agreements related to the development, exploration, and production of oil Yes but don't they all affect the environment? Yep, but a few vehicles against what oil and all its substances has done to the sir and planet is a drop in a shit and plastic filled ocean
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 1, 2023 13:44:40 GMT
It's worrying that you and those that "liked" your post think that running someone over is an accepatable option. He was going about his business. Law breakers were trying to stop him. It’s worrying times when criminals get support. Although I expect nothing less from some of the constant bed wetters on this board. Your answer tells me all I need to know about you, cheers.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 1, 2023 14:00:22 GMT
Yes, you’ve convinced me. In fact, I hear Isis will be filming them throwing orange paint on themselves in front of their victims rather than beheading them in future. That is the way to spread terror… Pretty small minded to think terrorists have to blow the fuck out of people or behead someone. - Damage to property, check. - Endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action), check. - Creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, check. Throwing orange powder over yourself at a flower show is terrorism now? I thought you hated snowflakes
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 1, 2023 14:51:53 GMT
Just ignore Huddy. Other than that the chat is fair play.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 1, 2023 14:56:38 GMT
Just ignore Huddy. Other than that the chat is fair play. Good idea.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 1, 2023 14:57:15 GMT
Why are all the eco dorks, all pissing their pants over some terminology on here.
Who cares what Tossi says, stick to the topic.
His post, 'violence' is nothing more than a reply on this board. Nothing to get all worked up over.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 1, 2023 15:03:41 GMT
Just ignore Huddy. Other than that the chat is fair play. Good idea. I don't like it when you like my posts mate. 😀
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 1, 2023 16:51:11 GMT
He was going about his business. Law breakers were trying to stop him. It’s worrying times when criminals get support. Although I expect nothing less from some of the constant bed wetters on this board. Your answer tells me all I need to know about you, cheers. Go on then, enlighten me
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 1, 2023 17:02:33 GMT
Your answer tells me all I need to know about you, cheers. Go on then, enlighten me I’m not sure what it is about your post which tells someone all they need to know about you. Other than you being pretty much spot on. Maybe he likes you😉
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 1, 2023 17:03:34 GMT
Why are all the eco dorks, all pissing their pants over some terminology on here. Who cares what Tossi says, stick to the topic. His post, 'violence' is nothing more than a reply on this board. Nothing to get all worked up over. I blame Crouchie for changing the thread title😏
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 1, 2023 17:39:18 GMT
Just Stop Oil might indeed have a legitimate cause to protest about but that then doesn't mean that that gives them the right to protest however they like, whenever they like.
If we're going to live in a functioning and democratic society, we can't just allow anybody who believes they have just claim to protest, to do so whenever it suits them, we'd have anarchy.
I find the Just Stop Oil protesters to be particularly arrogant in their belief, that they are somehow special and have more rights than other people who have a cause that they believe in.
The right to protest on the streets, is a right that we all have but it should be done in consultation with the local authorities and the police, so that right can be facilitated accordingly.
We simply can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grievance deciding to sit in the middle of our highways whenever they feel like it.
You might accuse me of making a daft analogy here but I'm doing it to make a specific point. For many people, how their football team is doing is more important TO THEM than the issue of climate change but we'd all be up in arms if football supporters of a particular club decided to sit in the middle of the road, everytime they wanted a change of manager.
The point being, that there isn't a hierarchy of causes that means that one has a more legitimate right to protest than another but Just Stop Oil seem to think there is and this somehow legitimises their form of protest.
It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 1, 2023 17:48:12 GMT
Just Stop Oil might indeed have a legitimate cause to protest about but that then doesn't mean that that gives them the right to protest however they like, whenever they like. If we're going to live in a functioning and democratic society, we can't just allow anybody who believes they have just claim to protest, to do so whenever it suits them, we'd have anarchy. I find the Just Stop Oil protesters to be particularly arrogant in their belief, that they are somehow special and have more rights than other people who have a cause that they believe in. The right to protest on the streets, is a right that we all have but it should be done in consultation with the local authorities and the police, so that right can be facilitated accordingly. We simply can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grievance deciding to sit in the middle of our highways whenever they feel like it. You might accuse me of making a daft analogy here but I'm doing it to make a specific point. For many people, how their football team is doing is more important TO THEM than the issue of climate change but we'd all be up in arms if football supporters of a particular club decided to sit in the middle of the road, everytime they wanted a change of manager. The point being, that there isn't a hierarchy of causes that means that one has a more legitimate right to protest than another but Just Stop Oil seem to think there is and this somehow legitimises their form of protest. It doesn't. That’s pretty much hit the spot!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 1, 2023 17:58:12 GMT
Why are all the eco dorks, all pissing their pants over some terminology on here. Who cares what Tossi says, stick to the topic. His post, 'violence' is nothing more than a reply on this board. Nothing to get all worked up over. I blame Crouchie for changing the thread title😏 I blame Kitson, and the Met mate.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 1, 2023 18:12:01 GMT
Just Stop Oil might indeed have a legitimate cause to protest about but that then doesn't mean that that gives them the right to protest however they like, whenever they like. If we're going to live in a functioning and democratic society, we can't just allow anybody who believes they have just claim to protest, to do so whenever it suits them, we'd have anarchy. I find the Just Stop Oil protesters to be particularly arrogant in their belief, that they are somehow special and have more rights than other people who have a cause that they believe in. The right to protest on the streets, is a right that we all have but it should be done in consultation with the local authorities and the police, so that right can be facilitated accordingly. We simply can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grievance deciding to sit in the middle of our highways whenever they feel like it. You might accuse me of making a daft analogy here but I'm doing it to make a specific point. For many people, how their football team is doing is more important TO THEM than the issue of climate change but we'd all be up in arms if football supporters of a particular club decided to sit in the middle of the road, everytime they wanted a change of manager. The point being, that there isn't a hierarchy of causes that means that one has a more legitimate right to protest than another but Just Stop Oil seem to think there is and this somehow legitimises their form of protest. It doesn't. To be fair, it is a crap analogy mate. Climate change, unlike a footy teams results, is an important issue. It's not an every Tom, Dick or Harry grievance. The protesters could also do a lot worse than just sitting on a road. Although I admit that some even see that as an act of terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 1, 2023 18:15:54 GMT
Just Stop Oil might indeed have a legitimate cause to protest about but that then doesn't mean that that gives them the right to protest however they like, whenever they like. If we're going to live in a functioning and democratic society, we can't just allow anybody who believes they have just claim to protest, to do so whenever it suits them, we'd have anarchy. I find the Just Stop Oil protesters to be particularly arrogant in their belief, that they are somehow special and have more rights than other people who have a cause that they believe in. The right to protest on the streets, is a right that we all have but it should be done in consultation with the local authorities and the police, so that right can be facilitated accordingly. We simply can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grievance deciding to sit in the middle of our highways whenever they feel like it. You might accuse me of making a daft analogy here but I'm doing it to make a specific point. For many people, how their football team is doing is more important TO THEM than the issue of climate change but we'd all be up in arms if football supporters of a particular club decided to sit in the middle of the road, everytime they wanted a change of manager. The point being, that there isn't a hierarchy of causes that means that one has a more legitimate right to protest than another but Just Stop Oil seem to think there is and this somehow legitimises their form of protest. It doesn't. To be fair, it is a crap analogy mate. Climate change, unlike a footy teams results, is an important issue. It's not an every Tom, Dick or Harry grievance. The protesters could also do a lot worse than just sitting on a road. Although I admit that some even see that as an act of terrorism. You've clearly missed the point I was making, although I did try and walk you through it. Thankfully, it appears that some other posters have understood it.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jun 1, 2023 18:17:34 GMT
|
|