Everyone and their nans are aware but to pass on responsibility to those in power is wrong. This is our problem and one we need to address but we ignore don’t even consider it. Good luck to them, they may make us consider our decisions.
what good does it do vandalising folks dreams like at the Flower Show and generally antagonising ordinary folk going about their business? It might be a good cause, but piss off and have a go at politicians and embassies, big business and folk that can make a difference!!
I was at Twickers yesterday, protest was obviously pretty poorly received. Affected the game as well. Sarries had just kicked to Sale, game had to be restarted- Sarries ball and they scored directly from it. I don't get why they don't just put a bunch of Just Stop Oil protestors outside the ground to have a presence, discuss their cause with fans and get their views across. Think that would garner much more support than pissing everyone off.
Everybody's got an opinion on summat these days and i guess people see things differantly, i just cant see the point in most of their actions its ailinating them from the people rather than uniteing them, they definately need a new leader and strategy,
A strange 'vindication' or 'justification' for their disruptive 'ill targeted' (sustainable garden at Chelsea flower show? World snooker Crucible?? Twickenham Rugby???) methods apparently . People "talk about" Putin' but negatively. Their tactics may get people 'Talking about their stupidity' but that does not translate to promoting their cause. They are the exception to the old marketing adage -"there is no such thing as bad publicity". The main problem with protesters like 'Just Stop Oil' is that that they have no practical viable plan or solution to the actual problem. You cannot just 'Stop' oil production. The vast majority already know we cannot continue as we are doing and steps (albeit painfully slow and small ones) are being taken. Nothing these idiots do is going to make a difference except to disrupt business, commerce, the general public, increase pollution ( traffic jams in the case of blocking major roads), unnecessary deaths when emergency services cannot get through and costs to the taxpayer clearing up the mess and damage they leave behind.
One of the many failings of the COP process is that it’s left folk thinking that net zero is someone else’s problem. China’s , politicians, big business, embassies but not my problem. I will carry on like before. I’d like to think that organisations like Stop Oil give notice that waiting for others to solve the problem isn’t happening. As I say good luck to them. Ordinary folk have and are causing the problem.
Whilst ever mams and dads havent got enough money to put food on table for their kids, being held up in traffic on the way to work and losing wages due to it, is never going to get anyone onside who are in that scenario. Let alone the problems with ambulances and fire engines. Fact is those who are struggling literally cannot do anything, and having it constantly shoved in their faces will continue to turn the public against them
Their tactics won't change the minds of those who are sympathetic or antagonistic to their cause. Those who are undecided are likely to be unimpressed. In fact anyone who is undecided on this issue at this stage are likely to be short termist and self interested. For people like them an inconvenience to their lives is going to further alienate them.
History retrospectively treats many protest movements kindly and Just Stop Oil will be the same. Their tactics bring the issue they are passionate about into mainstream lives. Yes people might not like them but they probably weren’t keen on the Suffragettes letter bombing govt ministers or setting theatres alight. The pressure they brought to bear. The focus. It changed the message.
if they stopped emergency services that my family needed they would have a more pressing worry than fking oil. And history looks back kindly on letter bombers and arsonists yer having a laugh!
so to be clear you don’t think history looks favourably on the Suffragettes or the French Resistance both of whom used violent tactics? A yes or no will suffice.
Yes or no! haYou are seriously having a laugh if comparing the antics of these muppets to the valiant efforts of the French Resistance in a war!
There are vast tranches of academic study discussing the French Resistance and whether it was a terrorist organisation or not. I know reading *may*not be your thing but try it before commenting on matters you clearly don’t understand. So that was that a yes you don’t think history looks kindly on the Suffragettes and French resistance good to know. You could also examine the roots of trade unionism which were also sometimes violent but also why you are enjoying a weekend instead of working 7 days a week.
what a patronising self promoting load of *****, interpreted by yourself for your own purposes. That’s it for me not even going to bother trying anymore.
Unnecessarily condescending. And for what it’s worth, the just stop oil movement will never, ever be looked upon in similar regard as the suffragette movement or the French resistance. Because what they are looking to achieve, the whole world already knows and accepts has to happen, for both the environmental impact reason and also as it’s a dwindling finite resource anyway - there isn’t any choice but to stop using oil. And there’s broad support for what they want already - if anything their actions have as much chance of reducing that support as increasing it. But for the suffragettes, women might never have got the vote. The resistance may have changed the result of the war, if not they certainly helped. They changed history completely. All just stop oil can achieve, though, is to make the inevitable happen a bit quicker. A noble enough cause I’d agree - yes, but nothing like on the same scale as those you compare them to, and comparing them pouring some orange powder about on a few bizarrely chosen occasions, as well as gluing themselves to the odd road (To then be removed using acetone, which is made from propene, fractionally distilled from natural gas or shale gas generally…) to the causes you mention is to me a bit of a stretch. The achievements of both the suffragette movement and the resistance are greatly celebrated, but their often questionable (on many levels) methods glossed over as though they didn’t happen. Just Stop Oil will barely be remembered in history, if at all, especially if their protests continue to involve such things as orange powder dye or a tin of soup. I’m not advocating they resort to extreme measures, I’m suggesting they take a more reasoned approach. They would garner plenty of financial support, there’s endless celebs with deep pockets who are on the correct side of the ecological debate, to go down a different and potentially much better directed path. Go to the politicians, target the oil companies. Get bigger and better, then actually suggest a viable way forward, give a solution rather than just demand a change. All they are doing is pointing out a problem that the powers that be are already aware of. Instead of that and pissing people off in the process, why not loudly and openly suggest a workable solution, and get public support for it?
Using the suffragettes as an example to bolster your argument is, as @troff has said, nonsense. Those protests were single issue domestic struggles with an obvious solution.. In the case of the Suffragettes the Government giving 50% of the disenfranchised population the vote. They not only protested but offered the solution . Given just stop Oil are protesting about a global wide issue and have no actual solution to how the World can 'instantly' wean itself off the need for fossil fuels and, more importantly , no control over countries still using causing high levels of polluting -- China, Russia etc. there actions are counter productive. Protest by all means but only if you have a plan A & B to address the issue you are protesting about. EDIT: Footnote- Funny how I am sometimes accused by a small clique on here of being 'patronsing' and 'rude' due to my phrasing when putting my PoV and yet, you have blatantly and openly insulted and patronised someone (post 36) without any of the aformentioned 'clique' commenting. I suppose it depends on which side of the political fence they perceive someone to be
