M25 Protests

[Onelife]

https://news.sky.com/story/m25-traffic- ... e-12413311

Enough is enough, time for them to do a bit of tree hugging.

Is that a bit kinky?

Only if you have a young lady between you and the tree

[Kendhni]

Enough is enough, time for them to do a bit of tree hugging.

Is that a bit kinky?

Only if you have a young lady between you and the tree

That ain't kinky, that would be normal ... kinky would be having 2 ferrets and a badger between you and the tree

[david63]

Just a small point but isn't it illegal to walk on a motorway?

[Kendhni]

Just a small point but isn't it illegal to walk on a motorway?

It isn't a small point, it is a fact. But you don't have to dig too deep (even into posts on this board) to find that in this day-and-age people are often very selective about which laws apply to them and which do not.

[Meg 50]

Just a small point but isn't it illegal to walk on a motorway?

yes (except in emergencies presumably).
They are having an injunction served on them tomoro - though not sure how if there's no name and address - hope they don't have the same probs as they are having with Prince Andrew

[Onelife]

Just a small point but isn't it illegal to walk on a motorway?

It isn't a small point, it is a fact. But you don't have to dig too deep (even into posts on this board) to find that in this day-and-age people are often very selective about which laws apply to them and which do not.

I’m sure I’ve broken a few in my time Ken but I don’t think any of my misdemeanours have impinged on thousands of people’s lives like what these protesters have done.

[Kendhni]

That would pose an interesting question. At what point do we stop turning a blind eye to selectivity when it comes to the law - if it only affects 5 is it OK, but when it affects 5000 it becomes a problem ... where is the point at which it switches from acceptable to unacceptable? I suppose that is why the law is much more absolute, but the police are given a little bit of discretion.

[Onelife]

That would pose an interesting question. At what point do we stop turning a blind eye to selectivity when it comes to the law - if it only affects 5 is it OK, but when it affects 5000 it becomes a problem ... where is the point at which it switches from acceptable to unacceptable? I suppose that is why the law is much more absolute, but the police are given a little bit of discretion.

I don’t think most individual law infringements have much effect on others, less those who intentionally go out to break the law for personal gain.

There can never be an ‘acceptable’ in law. Discretion, however allows for the law to be administered fairly.

[david63]

Discretion, however allows for the law to be administered fairly.

The problem with "discretion" is that one person's interpretation of it is not always that of another person

[Onelife]

Discretion, however allows for the law to be administered fairly.

The problem with "discretion" is that one person's interpretation of it is not always that of another person

Tis true David…. but in the context of administering the law discretion is the fundamental reason why or judicial system works.

[Manoverboard]

.... and why the lawyers are coining it ....

[Mervyn and Trish]

As far as these protesters are concerned we're way past the point of discretion. One protest maybe, but day after day?

[Onelife]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zpTIrx6uAA

[Kendhni]

A total train crash of an interview. He started off so well and then he went down the Churchill (maybe he thought he was Johnson)

[Onelife]

A total train crash of an interview. He started off so well and then he went down the Churchill (maybe he thought he was Johnson)

,,,,at which point did he start off well?

[screwy]

An absolute Bellend.

[Kendhni]

A total train crash of an interview. He started off so well and then he went down the Churchill (maybe he thought he was Johnson)

,,,,at which point did he start off well?

It was fine up to, and including, the point when Reid said 'Welcome back' and he said 'Thank you' - I thought that was a very good start, sadly it went downhill from there.

[david63]

Do these people not realise that that type of behaviour does their cause, no matter how justified it may be, no good at all.

[Onelife]

A total train crash of an interview. He started off so well and then he went down the Churchill (maybe he thought he was Johnson)

,,,,at which point did he start off well?

It was fine up to, and including, the point when Reid said 'Welcome back' and he said 'Thank you' - I thought that was a very good start, sadly it went downhill from there.

I thought that was what you were referring to

[Kendhni]

Do these people not realise that that type of behaviour does their cause, no matter how justified it may be, no good at all.

That is actually very true. As in the report that Keith linked to (and most other reports I have read) the only thing that journalists are focussing on is the disruption, the risk to people (protestors and drivers) etc. - very few, if any, are focussing on the actual issue (they obviously think that the reality of the underlying issue does not sell). Protest groups need to know when the point has been made and when to move on.

[Onelife]

Do these people not realise that that type of behaviour does their cause, no matter how justified it may be, no good at all.

I agree David…these types of protests do nothing in determining how climate change issues are addressed.

Organised ‘mass marches’ tend to have far more impact than the disruptive nature of what we have witnessed these past few days. Yes’ there will still be disruption but planned marches are in my opinion much better at drawing attention to particular issues (albeit an on going issue)… they also benefit from being policed in a way that allow people to support, avoid or make alternative arrangements where possible.

[david63]

they also benefit from being policed in a way that allow people to support, avoid or make alternative arrangements where possible.

And therein lies another problem - policing of these "events". Why do I as a taxpayer have to foot the bill for all of this policing. If a protest needs policing then the protest organisers should have to pay for it in the same way that many other events have to pay.

[Onelife]

they also benefit from being policed in a way that allow people to support, avoid or make alternative arrangements where possible.

And therein lies another problem - policing of these "events". Why do I as a taxpayer have to foot the bill for all of this policing. If a protest needs policing then the protest organisers should have to pay for it in the same way that many other events have to pay.

I would imagine your view is shared by many but taking this line would, I believe, just lead to unsupervised gatherings/protests. The police would be left in the dark about where protests would take place and have no control over the disruption caused by such events.
The right of 'peaceful' assembly is written in law and any attempt to curtail such actions by implementing charges would be a retrograde step in my opinion irrespective of the cost to the UK tax payer.

[Manoverboard]

The right of 'peaceful' assembly is written in law and any attempt to curtail such actions by implementing charges would be a retrograde step in my opinion irrespective of the cost to the UK tax payer.

It should remain that way but be held in the middle of a field someplace well out of the way of the general population, it should also be forbidden to march to such venues.

Everyone's a winner and nobody will take a blind bit of notice of them as is mainly the case now.

[Kendhni]

No criticism of the posters on this board, because I see it widespread across the internet. The media has now reprogrammed people from talking about the actual issue, onto what are basically irrelevancies. That is why nothing ever gets done and all that remains is finger pointing.