Do we support Insulate Britain?

[ska invita]

Woman who 'nudged' Insulate Britain protester with 4X4 charged with assault

A mum who allegedly nudged an Insulate Britain protester with her Range Rover to try and move her out of the road in Essex has been charged with assault.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[8ball]

Woman who 'nudged' Insulate Britain protester with 4X4 charged with assault

A mum who allegedly nudged an Insulate Britain protester with her Range Rover to try and move her out of the road in Essex has been charged with assault.

www.lbc.co.uk

And yet so many posters on here are fine with ‘nudging’ when it comes to vaccinations.

 

[SpookyFrank]

And yet so many posters on here are fine with ‘nudging’ when it comes to vaccinations.

This is some weak bullshit as I suspect you know.

 

[platinumsage]

 

[kabbes]

Woman who 'nudged' Insulate Britain protester with 4X4 charged with assault

A mum who allegedly nudged an Insulate Britain protester with her Range Rover to try and move her out of the road in Essex has been charged with assault.

www.lbc.co.uk

Why label her as “a mum”. That’s some bullshit attempt to lead a narrative right there.

 

[ska invita]

Why label her as “a mum”. That’s some bullshit attempt to lead a narrative right there.

true, though there was the whole "going to school" aspect + her kid gave it some heckling too iirc

 

[kabbes]

true, though there was the whole "going to school" aspect + her kid gave it some heckling too iirc

They open their report with “A mum who allegedly…”. The moment they start with “a mum”, they are calling on popular discursive resources of ”mums” (not even just “mothers”!). It has taken-for-granted associations that are being made salient by bringing up her mum-ness — caring, nurturing, helpful, beloved — creating a context within which all what follows will be read. How can a “mum” be guilty of assault? It goes contrary to what we associate with being a mum. That’s some powerful cognitive dissonance right there. And then we have “nudge”…

Imagine the difference if they said, for example, “A woman driving a car that is over 50% heavier than the average hatchback is accused of using the £50,000+ vehicle to assault a pedestrian. The woman is alleged to have committed this assault in front of her child.”

 

[8ball]

This is some weak bullshit as I suspect you know.

Premium content as always.

 

[platinumsage]

Frail lady lying in road battered by 2-tonne-machine-wielding yob.

 

[NoXion]

How about "Stupid idiot fucks about in the road and gets assaulted by another stupid idiot"?

 

[Pickman's model]

How about "Stupid idiot fucks about in the road and gets assaulted by another stupid idiot"?

And we're into the narrative of some protestors can block the road and good luck to them and other protestors who do the same are beyond the pale.

 

[8ball]

And we're into the narrative of some protestors can block the road and good luck to them and other protestors who do the same are beyond the pale.

I’m probably not properly awake yet, but who are the first group?

 

[platinumsage]

And we're into the narrative of some protestors can block the road and good luck to them and other protestors who do the same are beyond the pale.

Obviously. No one in these days of culture wars supports the right of people to protest if they disagree with the protestors' aims. What an absurd twentieth century idea!

 

[Pickman's model]

I’m probably not properly awake yet, but who are the first group?

Youre right, you're not properly awake yet. So many groups have blocked roads and been greatly supported by people here. I daresay a great minority of people here, perhaps even a majority, have blocked roads while part of an organisation or just on a demonstration (intending to block roads not simply as part of an a to b march). And I can think of several occasions cars have pushed through blockages like that at demonstrations I've been on.

 

[8ball]

Youre right, you're not properly awake yet. So many groups have blocked roads and been greatly supported by people here. I daresay a great minority of people here, perhaps even a majority, have blocked roads while part of an organisation or just on a demonstration (intending to block roads not simply as part of an a to b march). And I can think of several occasions cars have pushed through blockages like that at demonstrations I've been on.

Ok, wasn’t sure whether you were talking about those protests mostly from some time back, or talking about anti-vaxxers, who have caused disruption much more recently.

Getting out of bed and getting some caffeine in system once house warms up a bit…

 

[NoXion]

And we're into the narrative of some protestors can block the road and good luck to them and other protestors who do the same are beyond the pale.

Who said anything about what people can or can't do? I'm not calling for new laws, nor even the stricter enforcement of current ones. I'm calling them stupid idiots. Which is what someone is if they think they can push for action on climate change by blocking ordinary commuters going about their business. I'm sure the fossil fuels industry is quaking in their boots right? Actually I think slower traffic burns more fuel, so if anything what happened was a win as far as they are concerned.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who said anything about what people can or can't do?

no one. it's a straw man. excellent stuff.

 

[Storm Fox]

Who said anything about what people can or can't do? I'm not calling for new laws, nor even the stricter enforcement of current ones. I'm calling them stupid idiots. Which is what someone is if they think they can push for action on climate change by blocking ordinary commuters going about their business. I'm sure the fossil fuels industry is quaking in their boots right? Actually I think slower traffic burns more fuel, so if anything what happened was a win as far as they are concerned.

This. Their form of protest doesn't sense.
Protest against car use: Block roads or refineries
Protest against building a road: Disrupt the construction
Protest against fossil fuel use: Block power stations.
Protest for increased insulation: Block roads and annoy people they need support from.

One these things is not the like the others.

 

[MickiQ]

I think anyone including these people have the right to protest about anything any want. What no-one has is the right to expect eveyone else to support their cause and not react angrily when their lives are disrupted for a cause they don't support.

 

[NoXion]

Polling shows that three quarters of British adults worry about climate change. Two-thirds of US adults think the government should be doing more. Climate change and its consequences are in the mainstream news all the time, with even Sky News having a Daily Climate Show. I don't think the lack of meaningful action can be blamed on a lack of public awareness. At this point I think it's quite obvious that more pressure needs to be placed on governments and big business.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who said anything about what people can or can't do? I'm not calling for new laws, nor even the stricter enforcement of current ones. I'm calling them stupid idiots. Which is what someone is if they think they can push for action on climate change by blocking ordinary commuters going about their business. I'm sure the fossil fuels industry is quaking in their boots right? Actually I think slower traffic burns more fuel, so if anything what happened was a win as far as they are concerned.

I remember blocking the junction at old street in an action against the Iraq war back in '03. Blocking Euston road against council cuts six or so years ago. To name but two examples. Would it have any impact in the war or the cuts? No. Sure we've all blocked the odd ordinary commuter going about their business: tho why you privilege going too or from work I don't know. There isn't always the linkage you seem to insist on between the end - the object - and all the means taken to get there. I don't know why you insist on it in this instance. I don't know why you think the intent of the protest was against the fossil fuel industry when ib's clear and often stated objective is to change government policy on insulation. Yeh have a pop at ib but why do it from a position of abject ignorance?

 

[kabbes]

I think anyone including these people have the right to protest about anything any want. What no-one has is the right to expect eveyone else to support their cause and not react angrily when their lives are disrupted for a cause they don't support.

They do have the right to expect that people won’t drive 2 tonne vehicles into them though, no matter how late their precious is for school. That’s out-and-out assault.

 

[MickiQ]

They do have the right to expect that people won’t drive 2 tonne vehicles into them though, no matter how late their precious is for school. That’s out-and-out assault.

And that right is being enforced since the driver is going to be prosecuted

 

[kabbes]

And that right is being enforced since the driver is going to be prosecuted

So we’re all in agreement then

 

[8ball]

I think anyone including these people have the right to protest about anything any want. What no-one has is the right to expect eveyone else to support their cause and not react angrily when their lives are disrupted for a cause they don't support.

Actually afaik what Insulate Britain want is a fairly popular idea with the public. It is down to their particular brand of tactical genius that most people would sooner be associated with pubic lice than with them.

 

[likesfish]

you dont get to nudge anyone with a range rover.
what next Hamas slightly annoyed by an airstrike?
nudging karen has become some sort of Icon for utter cockwombles. Personally think insulate Britain's aims are great just direct action possibly not the best tactic

 

[platinumsage]

They do have the right to expect that people won’t drive 2 tonne vehicles into them though, no matter how late their precious is for school. That’s out-and-out assault.

Whilst I agree it seems to be assault in this case, it certainly wouldn't be in every case. A defence to assault by driving a 2 tonne vehicle at someone with the intention of nudging them so that they refrain from committing an offence of obstruction would be that the force used was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances for the defence of another or prevention of the crime.

It would be quite unlikely for a court to regard nudging as excessive force if there was clearly no intention to injure, so in most cases it would depend on whether the action was necessary. For a child being late to school, probably not, but if someone in the vehicle had a relevant medical condition or was visiting a seriously ill child in hospital or whatever, the court could easily decide that the defendant honestly beleived that the course of action they took was reasonable and necessary.

 

[kabbes]

Whilst I agree it seems to be assault in this case, it certainly wouldn't be in every case. A defence to assault by driving a 2 tonne vehicle at someone with the intention of nudging them so that they refrain from committing an offence of obstruction would be that the force used was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances for the defence of another or prevention of the crime.

It would be quite unlikely for a court to regard nudging as excessive force if there was clearly no intention to injure, so in most cases it would depend on whether the action was necessary. For a child being late to school, probably not, but if someone in the vehicle had a relevant medical condition or was visiting a seriously ill child in hospital or whatever, the court could easily decide that the defendant honestly beleived that the course of action they took was reasonable and necessary.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. It is entirely foreseeable that hitting somebody with a solid metal, two-tonne object could cause serious, life-altering injury, even at very low speeds. "Intent to injure" doesn't really come into it. You can't do something that is clearly foreseeable as dangerous just because you don't mean to hurt the people that get hurt. Aside from anything else, the eggshell skull principle is well established. You might be able to get away with something violent if you are arguing defence of a person, if you can also show it was reasonable force. If you want to argue prevention of a general crime, however, your barrier for reasonable force is much tougher.

 

[platinumsage]

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. It is entirely foreseeable that hitting somebody with a solid metal, two-tonne object could cause serious, life-altering injury, even at very low speeds.

It didn't though. It's the actual level of force used that is relevant, not what might have happened if the defendant had driven faster or the protester had been frail and become seriously injured. This should be obvious to you - it is foreseeable that hitting somebody in the head with a hand can cause serious life-altering injury, but giving someone a gentle slap is not treated the same as knocking someone out so that their head hits the ground.

 

[Pickman's model]

It didn't though. It's the actual level of force used that is relevant, not what might have happened if the defendant had driven faster or the protester had been frail and become seriously injured. This should be obvious to you - it is foreseeable that hitting somebody in the head with a hand can cause serious life-altering injury, but giving someone a gentle slap is not treated the same as knocking someone out so that their head hits the ground.

you don't need to knock someone out so their head hits the ground. as any reasonable person can imagine, a sharp push could easily cause someone to strike their head on the ground and be knocked out though they were conscious before hitting the ground. a palm strike is often held up as gentle but can kill. your 'gentle slap' might lead to consequences you had no intention of causing: any force used against another person will be undertaken in ignorance of what it might cause.