Is Mob Law taking over?

nthclare · 18-10-2019 2:12pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah the old generalised ad homeinem wixed with a hint of low-level trolling, aka the "I'm not capable of debating the issue but I'm too proud to admit it" and we return to the sticking point:

Regardless of whether or not you agree with their methods, is there ideal correct; and if so, what do you suggest as an alternative?

Or is it another "crusty"/"unemployed" misdirection (be careful - didn't work for Keyzer or the OP)

Can you explain the above in layman's terms please.

Because I have difficulty in understanding where you're going or coming from.

I'd happily discuss it then

Thelonious Monk · 18-10-2019 2:28pm

nthclare wrote: »

Can you explain the above in layman's terms please.

Because I have difficulty in understanding where you're going or coming from.

I'd happily discuss it then

How do you know so much about these people? Like the clothes they wear, and where they go on holidays every year. You're just making sh*t up out of some weird fantasy you have of these people being as hypocritical and pampered as possible.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 2:50pm

nthclare wrote: »

Can you explain the above in layman's terms please.

Because I have difficulty in understanding where you're going or coming from.

I'd happily discuss it then

Which bit?
Generalised - broad assumption made on specifics - they're all hippies. If you watched even ten seconds of news or red one paragraph you;d now they come form all walks of life. There are acamedics and CEOs in there.
Ad homeinem - an attack on the person - "Crusties"; no effort to relate to issue.
Trolling - posting to get a rise rather then to debate issue - implying that protestors don't wash. There's no attempt to debate

Question:
Do you agree that they have a point?
Yes? what do you propose people to do promt political and societal change?
No? Why not? Are you denying climate change?

TLDR - your post is beyond ignorant unless you can prove CEOs and professors don't wash; or trolling if you believe they do.

bladespin · 18-10-2019 3:12pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There are acamedics and CEOs in there.
.

Which CEO's were involved?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 3:38pm

bladespin wrote: »

Which CEO's were involved?

Nigel Harvey was one
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3082476/recolight-ceo-spent-night-in-jail-for-xr-activism

Mark Constantine of Lush Cosmetics
(Can't find link to say he was there, but he did publicly fund them)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/interview-lush-cosmetics-boss-mark-constantine-w2rxv0232

The third I was thinking of was Stanley Johnson (Boris' Dad) but have to withdraw that one as he's not a CEO (apologies)

But my point is: the idea that Nthclare is presenting - that all XR protestors all hippies in need of a wash - is generalised ignorance.

bladespin · 18-10-2019 3:42pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nigel Harvey
Mark Constantine

Stanley Johnson (Boris' Dad) but have to withdraw that one as he's not a CEO (apologies)

Impressed, was Boris' dad there????

Just asking (not trolling really), really hope he was.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 4:01pm

bladespin wrote: »

Impressed, was Boris' dad there????

Just asking (not trolling really), really hope he was.

He sure was

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xt_H0xvkMU

nthclare · 18-10-2019 4:09pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which bit?
Generalised - broad assumption made on specifics - they're all hippies. If you watched even ten seconds of news or red one paragraph you;d now they come form all walks of life. There are acamedics and CEOs in there.
Ad homeinem - an attack on the person - "Crusties"; no effort to relate to issue.
Trolling - posting to get a rise rather then to debate issue - implying that protestors don't wash. There's no attempt to debate

Question:
Do you agree that they have a point?
Yes? what do you propose people to do promt political and societal change?
No? Why not? Are you denying climate change?

TLDR - your post is beyond ignorant unless you can prove CEOs and professors don't wash; or trolling if you believe they do.

Ok what companies do these CEOs work for ?

More than likely they're not exactly the pinnacle of their company if they're behaving like this, disruption of people's daily lives.

And is it acceptable for a CEO who's obviously running a company to be out there protesting against what ever ?

nthclare · 18-10-2019 4:11pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nigel Harvey was one
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3082476/recolight-ceo-spent-night-in-jail-for-xr-activism

Mark Constantine of Lush Cosmetics
(Can't find link to say he was there, but he did publicly fund them)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/interview-lush-cosmetics-boss-mark-constantine-w2rxv0232

The third I was thinking of was Stanley Johnson (Boris' Dad) but have to withdraw that one as he's not a CEO (apologies)

But my point is: the idea that Nthclare is presenting - that all XR protestors all hippies in need of a wash - is generalised ignorance.

The majority of protestors are not CEOs and academics.

Ok I did suggest that a lot of them are lefty hippie's, which is true.

I identify the hippie type's, you identify the CEOs and academics.

The plot is thickening

James Brown · 18-10-2019 4:17pm

nthclare wrote: »

The majority of protestors are not CEOs and academics.

Ok I did suggest that a lot of them are lefty hippie's, which is true.

I identify the hippie type's, you identify the CEOs and academics.

The plot is thickening

I never thought it was credible, the assumption or argument that a protest we don't like is all one type of person. You get like minded people from all walks. Hippies are more likely to protest maybe but any sizable movement will include all sorts.

nthclare · 18-10-2019 4:18pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Probably Bloody Sunday style-executions.

You're a dab hand at the trolling yourself and undermining an emotional event in history.

nthclare · 18-10-2019 4:23pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I never thought it was credible, the assumption or argument that a protest we don't like is all one type of person. You get like minded people from all walks. Hippies are more likely to protest maybe but any sizable movement will include all sorts.

Yes you're right I'll put my hand up and I was very narrow minded in suggesting it's all hippie's protesting when I've been proven wrong and I accept I was wrong.
I've no problem there.

I suppose the type's of people who are disruptive and protesting all fire from the same part of the brain as each other.

James Brown · 18-10-2019 4:29pm

nthclare wrote: »

Yes you're right I'll put my hand up and I was very narrow minded in suggesting it's all hippie's protesting when I've been proven wrong and I accept I was wrong.
I've no problem there.

I suppose the type's of people who are disruptive and protesting all fire from the same part of the brain as each other.

As do all humans I'd imagine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 4:36pm

nthclare wrote: »

You're a dab hand at the trolling yourself and undermining an emotional event in history.

The fact that you support one and not the other makes no difference.

nthclare wrote: »

Ok what companies do these CEOs work for ?

More than likely they're not exactly the pinnacle of their company if they're behaving like this, disruption of people's daily lives.

And is it acceptable for a CEO who's obviously running a company to be out there protesting against what ever ?

nthclare wrote: »

The majority of protestors are not CEOs and academics.

Ok I did suggest that a lot of them are lefty hippie's, which is true.

I identify the hippie type's, you identify the CEOs and academics.

The plot is thickening

You said "spray them all with water to give them a good wash" - which is significantly more ignorant then saying "a lot of them are hippies",

I mentioned the companies, either on the page or in the links, info is all there; I never said majority and I'm not arguing semantics with you as I've proven your ignorance.

Thus, we return to the age-old question you've refused to answer: how do you think they should make a point in such a way that people will listen?

nthclare · 18-10-2019 6:16pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The fact that you support one and not the other makes no difference.

You said "spray them all with water to give them a good wash" - which is significantly more ignorant then saying "a lot of them are hippies",

I mentioned the companies, either on the page or in the links, info is all there; I never said majority and I'm not arguing semantics with you as I've proven your ignorance.

Thus, we return to the age-old question you've refused to answer: how do you think they should make a point in such a way that people will listen?

Better marketing campaigns and reward those who can prove they're making a difference, not companies or CEOs but people in general.

Maybe some of these CEOs have investments in the environmental industry and don't give a toss.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 8:09pm

nthclare wrote: »

Better marketing campaigns and reward those who can prove they're making a difference, not companies or CEOs but people in general.

Maybe some of these CEOs have investments in the environmental industry and don't give a toss.

That's more governmental; but I meant the protesters - what do you propose that they do that would be effective?

kowloon · 18-10-2019 8:21pm

The protests blocking people's commutes and the carbon taxes are making it very easy to get outraged and consign all environmentalism to the 'lefty nonsense bin' for people looking for an excuse not to do anything. It's very like when people complain that we should be sorting out things at home when they're talking about sending aid abroad but then do **** all about anything at home.

nthclare · 18-10-2019 9:15pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's more governmental; but I meant the protesters - what do you propose that they do that would be effective?

Well they could get together and make a difference, you've CEOs and academics and a mix of others.

Obviously the CEOs have a great business head, the academics have brain's too, then you've the others who are passionate about the environmental impact of waste etc...

Put them all together and instead of shouting and roaring they could create their environmental emporium...

Start up a mini company and the sky's the limit, together they can win it.

They're not making any impact protesting that's for sure.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-10-2019 11:00pm

nthclare wrote: »

Well they could get together and make a difference, you've CEOs and academics and a mix of others.

Obviously the CEOs have a great business head, the academics have brain's too, then you've the others who are passionate about the environmental impact of waste etc...

Put them all together and instead of shouting and roaring they could create their environmental emporium...

Start up a mini company and the sky's the limit, together they can win it.

They're not making any impact protesting that's for sure.

What exactly do you mean by "enviromental emporum"?

I see the angle you're coming from, but we're at the stage where the situation needs law changes and legal/governmental input on a fast and international level, and start-ups and new businesses simply don't have the size or time to grow to be effective globally.

Hal3000 · 18-10-2019 11:02pm

Heavy sack beatings set to increase..

dubdaymo · 19-10-2019 1:08am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

how do you think they should make a point in such a way that people will listen?

All forms of protest must be within the law. If you disagree with that then that's end of conversation.

In my opening post I said if not nipped in the bud this trend could develop into something very unpleasant. Well, on Thursday, in a London Tube station, unpleasant began. Commuters arriving to get on their train were faced with two lunatics standing on the roof of their train waving a banner. (who of sane mind would climb up on top of a train - or a plane?). This meant their train couldn't move. With the pathetic PC-encrusted Police as usual doing nothing the commuters decided to do their job for them and the two were hauled down, one of them kicking out at the face of one of the commuters. Both were lucky they were not trampled on.

Yesterday 50+ Police stood by again as a timber construction was built in the middle of Oxford St. blocking traffic and they then stood all around it like statues instead of storming in, confiscating the wood and arresting the lunatics.

Another lunatic clown has climbed up the scaffolding on Big Ben in the most security sensitive area in town. Insanity personified.

By not nipping these disruptive actions in the bud the Police are sending out the wrong message and copycat action or worse will inevitably follow.

gctest50 · 19-10-2019 1:21am

This man took time out on his way home from a nightshift to show how to deal with them :

https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/djqfii

joeguevara · 19-10-2019 1:33am

I haven't been as annoyed in a long time as a couple Of weeks ago and waiting for a bus around lunchtime and had no idea why none were coming. The display at bus stop saying that they were coming. Passerby told me not a chance bus was coming because of students climate March.

However demonstrations are not a new thing and without them the world would be a worse place.
Anti racism marches. Women's rights marches. Anti wAR marches. They are not new and promote change

If done correctly they are welcomed. But if hijacked are counter productive. But we cannot enjoy what they haVe done for the better good and give out if they are inconvenient.

end of the road · 19-10-2019 1:51am

dubdaymo wrote: »

All forms of protest must be within the law. If you disagree with that then that's end of conversation.

In my opening post I said if not nipped in the bud this trend could develop into something very unpleasant. Well, on Thursday, in a London Tube station, unpleasant began. Commuters arriving to get on their train were faced with two lunatics standing on the roof of their train waving a banner. (who of sane mind would climb up on top of a train - or a plane?). This meant their train couldn't move. With the pathetic PC-encrusted Police as usual doing nothing the commuters decided to do their job for them and the two were hauled down, one of them kicking out at the face of one of the commuters. Both were lucky they were not trampled on.

the commuters didn't do the police's job for them, they simply attacked protesters. that is not doing the police's job for them i'm afraid.

dubdaymo wrote: »

Yesterday 50+ Police stood by again as a timber construction was built in the middle of Oxford St. blocking traffic and they then stood all around it like statues instead of storming in, confiscating the wood and arresting the lunatics.

the police went in, removed the construction, and arrested the protesters.

dubdaymo wrote: »

Another lunatic clown has climbed up the scaffolding on Big Ben in the most security sensitive area in town. Insanity personified.

he was caught and arrested.

dubdaymo wrote: »

By not nipping these disruptive actions in the bud the Police are sending out the wrong message and copycat action or worse will inevitably follow.

there is nothing to nip in the bud and the police are sending no message. the police are arresting law breakers when and where they can. disruptive protesting is as old as man kind, extinction rebellion's actions are for the most part not new, apart from the lack of resisting arrest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-10-2019 10:11am

dubdaymo wrote: »

All forms of protest must be within the law. If you disagree with that then that's end of conversation.

In my opening post I said if not nipped in the bud this trend could develop into something very unpleasant. Well, on Thursday, in a London Tube station, unpleasant began. Commuters arriving to get on their train were faced with two lunatics standing on the roof of their train waving a banner. (who of sane mind would climb up on top of a train - or a plane?). This meant their train couldn't move. With the pathetic PC-encrusted Police as usual doing nothing the commuters decided to do their job for them and the two were hauled down, one of them kicking out at the face of one of the commuters. Both were lucky they were not trampled on.

Yesterday 50+ Police stood by again as a timber construction was built in the middle of Oxford St. blocking traffic and they then stood all around it like statues instead of storming in, confiscating the wood and arresting the lunatics.

Another lunatic clown has climbed up the scaffolding on Big Ben in the most security sensitive area in town. Insanity personified.

By not nipping these disruptive actions in the bud the Police are sending out the wrong message and copycat action or worse will inevitably follow.

The problem with legitimate protest is that it generally doesn't work, unless you have governmental support either domestically or abroad. And if it DOES look like it's going to work, the law gets changed so that it doesn't work.

That said, idiots like the guys climbing onto trains and Big Ben should he highlighted for the ****wits they are, but the gloating when they get beaten up is a bit telling. These guys should be named and shamed both within their protest groups and publicly (they're trying to get people to use public transport - why distupt it?!)

The problem you have is with protests generally (you refered to them as "lunatics" three times in your OP) and that you don't want them to get any pubicity (why should they NOT be given airtime with the media?) and you - and a lot of other posters - just come across as a bunch of people who just want to sit back with some popcorn and watch a some violence.

You asked "is mob law taking over" - well, a mob pulled a guy off a train and beat him up and you were in support of it.

It all comes across as a bit soicopathic, to be honest.

Is Mob Law taking over?

Comments