This applies to every strike, riot, and large sanctioned protest. If we're only ever to use strategies that don't inconvenience anyone we might as well just lie down and wait for the end. Somewhere out of the way, of course.
I think there were four deliveries a day then
I don't know what this means. There's a clip of JSO blocking a woman who, unless she's lying, is trying to take her baby to the hospital. I assume it's a non emergency (otherwise it'd be an ambulance). They also admit this actually happened in a separate interview. I don't know who said mother is meant to appeal to wrt permissible violence, but she didn't attack anyone she just screamed at them to get out o fthe way. They didn't seem to care or even listen.Yes those circumstances would clearly permit violence
You don't know and aren't saying many things. And if you'd not say them by not posting then everyone would be happier.
I think that the authorities are shooting themselves in the foot by dishing out custodial sentences for non-violent protest. I wonder what the judges actually think about this; it seems most likely that they've been told to hand out harsh punishments as a matter of political expediency, but surely they must have some awareness that clamping down so tightly bears the risk of creating martyrs to the cause. Perhaps there's a degree of malicious compliance happening. Or maybe they've all lost their marbles and they all think that it will be completely effective without any kind of backfiring or unintended consequences. Who the fuck knows.
This is silly false dichotomy. Surely there are other options besdies a) do nothing and b) do something ineffective? I don't think anyone in this discussion has said let the oil barons continue unimpeded.Indeed, maybe 'protesters' should in future just mutter to themselves in their garden shed or some overgrown corner of the local park, so as not to annoy or inconvenience anyone. Better still, let's just leave governments and oil companies to it, surely they have all our best interests at heart?
Anyway whatever you do, nobody mention the suffragists! That's different, what they were doing was important whereas this is just hippies and students etc
Does anyone in the Socialist Party not consider you a grade A prat?
Hallam is not a martyr. He encouraged people to get arrested and charged and sentenced and tbh for that he should have imo received a longer sentence. The man claims he's carefully studied protest but he's led many thousands of people to getting needless convictions. He may be on the side of the angels but he's a dangerous and despicable creature
No one in the sp considers him otherwise
Why not address something I've said instead of being a prick?
Everything you say demonstrates you are a prick
Class matters quite strictly here, that and training. They're the haut booj, and given they've chosen the judiciary (they'd have a doctor sister and a brother in the cloth if its were the slightly older days) they identify themselves as the guardians of the states laws. Sure they'll be a few of more independent mind but the rest of them are reading from the times editorials and listening to radio 4's shockingly reactionary morning prog each day before they've had a shit and a cuppa
You wouldn't want to ingest anything before listening to the emetic toady programme
Fair enough about Hallam himself, but I was more thinking about the others.
To paraphrase gusty Spence I bet they'll come to feel they wish they'd never heard of that man hallam
The point was that criticism of JSO, or whoever, stands on its own merits and whether or not the critic provides an alternative isn't really relevant to the point offered. You can reasonably ask what solutions people can offer, and that's a valid discussion that should happen. I said, they should target oil companies and others that people can see are directly connected to climate change.
You fell down the stupid tree and banged your head on every branch
I don't think they were sentenced because of the cause (ie climate change). They were sentenced because the state doesn't like people doing disruptive things. I think it would be fallacious to assume that because they've recieved unduly harsh punishments (or perhaps punishments at all) that their protect is effective. You would have to provide evidence of that independently, presumably by polling the public or looking as to whether polluters are changing their habits.
The state, largely thanks to the last government, has cracked down on protest regardless. Remember the heavy handed response to the disturbances in Bristol with cops smashing protesters with their shields? Kettling during the student protests early in the 2010's?
I don't know what this means. No one is defending the state here. I'm certainly notGood job all round
I think it was certainly an indication that the state found those riots extremely threatening.
When you finally admit to being a mendacious shit you'll be an out liar
I suspect they assume that simply exacting blatantly unfair punishments on anyone involved will discourage anyone else from trying the same. I don't think they have any great interest in creating an ethical justification for that, I think they've given up on that part because they are so clearly in the wrong.
the state doesn't consider those things to be disruptive though. Those are normal workings of the state.
