Stopoil

Seem to have put in an appearance at Twickenham.

While I'm all for reducing consumption, I'm struggling to think of another organisation whose methods are so effective at putting people off joining them. Apart from PETA.

 

Haven't they also recently been and protested at Chelsea flower show?

Go protest at Westminster or by Number 10.

There is very little about them that makes me back the tactics of their cause.

 

Definitely a counter productive strategy.

 

You're talking about them, which you wouldn't be if they were quietly waving signs somewhere.

 

Think the garden they threw powder on is an eco sustainable one using recycled materials, which makes it even more bizarre

 

You are of course correct, and I'm sure that's why they do it.

 

They're being talked about in a negative way though... I don't think that helps their cause at all.

 

I think they'd be happy at drawing attention to the underlying issues even if they get labelled as a bunch of *******.

 

I think most of us are already aware and sympathetic to the issue, I think the way they're going about it damages the case.

 

But everyone and their nans are aware. Its the people in power they need to be doing something about. Making peoples lives worse are just going to turn more people off them, and its certainly happening with the amount of incidents occurring with the public getting involved in removing them

 

Wasn't the garden funded by some wealth fund or some such?

 

So were the suffragettes. And PETA have definitely swung the tide against fur wearing etc and some of their actions were similar to stopoil.

 

Zero impact at Twickenham.

Game had to be stopped for 2 injuries anyway, most of the orange powder drifted away in the breeze, tv cut away to a touchline interview.

At half tie the rest of the powder was brushed away and it was as if it never happened.

The impact at the snooker was far more visible.

 

Exactly this. I am very sympathetic to their cause, but find the methods annoying and I have never been caught up in one of their disruptions. But thats precisely the point - protests that don't affect anyone are ineffective and pointless. This way, they get noticed, talked about and slowly but surely, the cause gains traction. I can see why they do it.

In a way, it's the same principle that makes awful annoying ads work. You remember them precisely because they get on your tits. The 'Go Compare' bloke makes you want to throw a shoe at the telly, but when you need to search for insurance, the name is imprinted in your brain.

 

The difference is though Helen is that Suffragettes were talked about negatively only by their enemy, JSO are alienating people like myself who are supportive of the cause.

 

Do you think that PETA were responsible for swinging the tide against fur? Their shock videos were probably pretty effective, but their brain-dead stunt where they released a load of farmed mink who proceeded to wreck the surrounding ecosystem certainly didn't win them many friends, even among people who sympathised with their cause.

 

That's sort of the point I'm trying to make. They did stunts that didn't make them friends but ultimately they achieved some of their objectives. Not condoning their actions at all btw just pointing out similarities

 

I wonder if the powder is a metaphor for the human race. Brushed away as if it never happened.

 

If they go and storm the Turkmenistan embassy or better still go block their roads I’d have some respect.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed

 

Most of the gardens are funded by wealthy donors , corporate or otherwise , seemed strange picking on one that was sustainable