I suspect I won't win a popularity contest with this one! but I am starting to admire these protestors.

The middle-aged world weary in me says just grow up and get off the bloody road; but I can't fully control the younger idealist who thinks that - in terms of the environment - direct (peaceful) action is now called for & justified because Governments continue to pay lip service to green issues.

The suffragettes, black civil rights activists etc etc.

It brings change & has always been needed at some point.

Despite it being infuriating if one is stuck in a jam, I agree WYOT. Coming, as I do, from the era of protest when we fought for equality of sexual rights, the tolerance for use of recreational drugs, the emancipation of women and blacks. Like everything, as time goes by, those values become caricatures and start reverse ferret time. When we protested against sexual abuse, rapists, misuse of orphanage positions we never thought we'd be creating generations of criminals, using our changes for criminal purposes.

We were the generation of the Eve of Destruction. That was why I wrote It's Good News Week and Everyone's Gone To The Moon, when most song writers were still in the lyrical world of The Sun Has Got His Hat On. My idols were Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell.

So yes, I'm for protest too.

Forcing people to do what you believe is right by force and coercion?

Yes, it seems very much the thing these days.

Honey wrote:
Forcing people to do what you believe is right by force and coercion?

Yes, it seems very much the thing these days.

Peaceful disruption Honey to hold those in power accountable for not addressing an ongoing harm/wrong.

When all else has failed this has proved time and again the only effective way to make progress; for women, slaves, gays, people of colour etc. Anywhere or time you look in history.

I can only assume that if some women had not taken action you would at some point have enjoyed the vote; but we can't be sure.

So I disagree it is the thing "these days".

The environment can be considered a different category than human rights, I understand. But by extension I would argue that our grandchildren have the right for us to take what reasonable steps we can to limit the damage we are causing for the world they will inherit.

I would also argue we owe responsibility to the other creatures we share the planet with.

I'm glad some people are pointing this all out. It is disappointing that it has had to come to this, but historically almost inevitable.

I hope for the sake of the planet that the actions spread peacefully across it.

Wyot, I am not arguing about preserving the environment,

( If I was, I would make sure I was NOT clad head to toe in disposable plastic made by slaves)

but If you think it is ok to kill a few people, or at the very least inconvenience them, for the sake of the greater good, then you might as well welcome compulsory vaccination and travel bans too. (for the greater good)

Would one so easily accept 'peaceful disruption' if the protests had prohibited you from attending a very important and long delayed business meeting?

Or from having urgent/late surgery or medical procedure which was critical to your, or your loved one's, well being and survival.

Few would be so accommodating I think, in the real world. Legitimate protest in totally acceptable in a reasonable form. Davison at Epsom, for example.

Honey wrote:
Wyot, I am not arguing about preserving the environment,

( If I was, I would make sure I was NOT clad head to toe in disposable plastic made by slaves)

but If you think it is ok to kill a few people, or at the very least inconvenience them, for the sake of the greater good, then you might as well welcome compulsory vaccination and travel bans too. (for the greater good)

Who mentioned killing anyone Honey or even harming?

We "ban" all sorts of things for the "greater good": murder, incest, heroin & few argue that this concept is problematic in itself. However, this aside, what has my support for a protest got to do with banning anything?

The aim of the protestors isn't to stop people travelling; it is to put pressure on the Government.

I disagree that there is any logical extension of my support for a protest to mandating or banning anything whatsoever.

Rufus wrote:
Would one so easily accept 'peaceful disruption' if the protests had prohibited you from attending a very important and long delayed business meeting?



One wouldn't personally so easily no; but so what?

Rufus wrote:
Would one so easily accept 'peaceful disruption' if the protests had prohibited you from attending a very important and long delayed business meeting?

Or from having urgent/late surgery or medical procedure which was critical to your, or your loved one's, well being and survival.

Few would be so accommodating I think, in the real world. Legitimate protest in totally acceptable in a reasonable form. Davison at Epsom, for example.

I think Emily Davison was exploited, but in my view it is not ok to injure or kill someone for your cause, and that goes for Mandela too.

Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:
Wyot, I am not arguing about preserving the environment,

( If I was, I would make sure I was NOT clad head to toe in disposable plastic made by slaves)

but If you think it is ok to kill a few people, or at the very least inconvenience them, for the sake of the greater good, then you might as well welcome compulsory vaccination and travel bans too. (for the greater good)

Who mentioned killing anyone Honey or even harming?

We "ban" all sorts of things for the "greater good": murder, incest, heroin & few argue that this concept is problematic in itself. However, this aside, what has my support for a protest got to do with banning anything?

The aim of the protestors isn't to stop people travelling; it is to put pressure on the Government.

I disagree that there is any logical extension of my support for a protest to mandating or banning anything whatsoever.

They are not letting ambulances through. It is only a matter of time.

We can agree to differ, but to me it looks like shoving people around to get your own way. (while not bothering to do much yourself)

I think we can agree; protest is a good thing, much needed. But it needs to get lots of media coverage without endangering life or hurting anyone.

Yes they need to give more thought to precisely how they are going about things and contingencies. I totally agree with you Honey that no movement justifies killing others, and e.g Mandela was unjustified in his involvement with murder. I support so far as it is peacefully done.

As JK alludes to media - if MSM (right wing in particular) was not so biased against "progressive" movements and so for soap opera catastrophising like Covid and chose real issues/threats to highlight this would help greatly across a wide spectrum of real issues. A boy can dream...

JK2006 wrote:
I think we can agree; protest is a good thing, much needed. But it needs to get lots of media coverage without endangering life or hurting anyone.

Anyone who lays on the road deserves to be ran over. I got talking to a bloke at a poker session last night - he has cancer. He mentioned if he saw them he will run him over because he knows that will be dead in a couple of years with cancer. He mentioned by the time there was trail and jury are selected set he will be too far gone to even care ! My grandparents and had the same mind set. He sure did have a lucky winning streak last night, he won 90k in 8 hours - so maybe fate is on his side.

My grandfather went to everyone he owed money to or settle a punch up with when he knew time was not on his side for much longer. Even had 80 odd he still could throw a hard, solid punch right hook, no knuckledusters were ever needed.

I remember taken him to Texas in the mid 90's he did loved the Southern women in every way possible.


I do love the older generation.