Just Stop Oil protester punched and kicked

Oil isn't the problem and we'd grind to a halt without it.

Like with many other protests, you can go about it without interrupting peoples day. Which is probably why people have such a negative view of them. They're only going to get the same treatment and worse now as people are sick to death of it.
 
Last edited:
I really wish I could say I'm surprised that one of these protesters was physically assaulted, but I'm actually more surprised this didn't happen sooner. I live just outside of London and the drivers around here seem excessively aggressive and impatient even compared with other parts of the country.
Whether you agree with the protesters methods or even the purpose of the subject of the protest, I can't think of many reasons(and any that I can think of are very unlikely scenarios) which can excuse such a massive over reaction with probable life changing consequences for the parties involved.
 
Expat Smoggie said:
I don't see these protestors outside the "big pharma" sites or perhaps the semiconductor factories in various cities-- why don't they create a human shield around the entrances to these location?. While their protest is meaningful their energy perhaps is aimed at the wrong people and therefore this punch-up was bound to happen, with no doubt more to follow.
Click to expand...

Because they aren’t called Just Stop Big Pharma.
 
Loop said:
Oil isn't the problem and we'd grind to a halt without it.

Like with many other protests, you can go about it without interrupting peoples day. Which is probably why people have such a negative view of them. They're only going to get the same treatment and worse now as people are sick to death of it.
Click to expand...

Do you know what JSO are protesting about and what is the purpose of their protests?
 
Rauko said:
What's that got to do with me or with me providing more information than the original BBC news report had? I've provided more context. That's it.

The guy lamped one of the protestors after his pregnant wife had been involved in a car crash after coming across the JSO protestors on a busy road. Them are the facts.

I'm not saying he was right to do it. I've not said I support what he did. I just provided the extra context.

Why is extra context and information such an issue for people?
Click to expand...

@Laughing has explained this to you a few posts up (y)
 
Loop said:
Oil isn't the problem and we'd grind to a halt without it.

Like with many other protests, you can go about it without interrupting peoples day. Which is probably why people have such a negative view of them. They're only going to get the same treatment and worse now as people are sick to death of it.
Click to expand...
"Oil isn't the problem"
OK . Expand a bit. What is the problem that the UN and the vast amount of academics agree as an existential threat to human kind?
 
Expat Smoggie said:
I don't see these protestors outside the "big pharma" sites or perhaps the semiconductor factories in various cities-- why don't they create a human shield around the entrances to these location?. While their protest is meaningful their energy perhaps is aimed at the wrong people and therefore this punch-up was bound to happen, with no doubt more to follow.
Click to expand...
Why would they protest people who make medicine? You mean big oil no?
 
Juninhoburger said:
The right to protest may not be absolute, but causing an obstruction as part of peaceful protest isn't against the law.
Click to expand...
That’s an oversimplification. Obstruction IS a crime for which legitimate protest MAY provide a lawful excuse defence subject to a proportionality test on the facts. The Supreme Court authority on this follows protests that sought to obstruct Defence and Security International (DSEI) arms fair at the Excel Centre in 2017. The issues that case weighed in that test of proportionality, including its targeted nature (the protest obstructed access to DSEI, not to some random street five miles away) don’t necessarily apply to everything JSO do.

And that’s before you consider the government’s draconian new restrictions.
 
Redka said:
after the dreadful few years everybody has haas the last thing you need is these people causing further disruption to our lives. Obviously the guy went over the top but the public should make it uncomfortable for these people - they have no empathy for what others are going through and are a self righteous bunch of clowns - what if the fellas wife lost her baby - There are many ways they could protest which doesn’t involve upsetting other peoples lives.
Click to expand...
Do you have any empathy for future generations or is all about the here and now for you

Your comments about a couple of good hidings is absolutely disgusting too
 
L
ForssAwakens said:
Do you have any empathy for future generations or is all about the here and now for you

Your comments about a couple of good hidings is absolutely disgusting too
Click to expand...
That’s the risk they take though - one day these people will cause someone to lose a baby, someone won’t make it to hospital on time etc etc. whether they mean for that to happen or not it will be their actions that cause it and they should stop and take responsibility for it.
equaliser said:
Well I don't think there's single JSO protester who would be happy - or would imagine - that a woman might lose her baby because of one of their protests. They price in inconveniencing people for sure, especially motorists, but also sports fans etc. But their response would be that global warming threatens to do more than inconvenience a few people, it threatens to devastate the planet.
As for being self righteous, on the contrary I think they're being selfless. There's nothing in it for them as individuals; they're doing it for everyone else. They aren't becoming celebrities, they're getting banged up.
Click to expand...
 
Laughing said:
Is not but it adds nothing. You are excusing an assault of an innocent man. That's the context you are providing. And I am ignorant and require pandering?
Click to expand...
I'm not excusing anything .. I'm describing the circumstances as to what led to the guy hitting the protestor .. that's adding context .. that's it .. nothing else .. if you can't grasp that simple concept then yes .. you ARE ignorant and seemingly have difficulty in reading and understanding simple English
 
Rauko said:
I'm not excusing anything .. I'm describing the circumstances as to what led to the guy hitting the protestor .. that's adding context .. that's it .. nothing else .. if you can't grasp that simple concept then yes .. you ARE ignorant
Click to expand...
You might want to argue your case without insulting me.

For context the thug assaulted an innocent man and you offer, in mitigation, his wife had a bump in the car because she was not driving safely. He could have killed the guy. By offering a weak excuse on his behalf, you are supporting his violent and unnecessary assault.

Perhaps you are the ignorant one.
 
Funky_Chicken said:
And yet there is no conclusive evidence that lowering man made carbon emissions will lower temperatures. It’s not like we haven’t had periods of warm weather in the past, before the Industrial Revolution, but not that long ago (relatively) in history - the Middle Ages for example were warmer than the current period. What we do know is that “climate change” will be used as an excuse to tax us more, be used as an excuse to limit our movement by restricting or even removing private vehicle ownership and very probably limited chance of ordinary folk travelling abroad. Wait till carbon scoring comes in as a means of deciding where you can travel to, then we’ll see how many on here are clapping just stop oil when they can’t go to an away game because they’ve used all their carbon credits for the month - it’s coming trust me. We’re already seeing 15 minutes cities spring up with the idea of restricting everyone’s travel to their own little space inside each city. Liverpool council have only today announced they have approved plans to split the city up into 13 “zones”, and just about every council in the country has already committed to doing the same. Look at all the ULEZ cameras springing up everywhere - driving your own car will soon be a luxury reserved for the rich or privileged, the rest of us will be severely restricted on where we can go
Click to expand...

You sound exactly like those great critical thinkers of our time - Right Said Fred, Matt Letissier, Neil Oliver, any number of the more extreme contrarian right wing shock jocks and a bunch of conspiracy theorist loons.
 
Laughing said:
You might want to argue your case without insulting me.

For context the thug assaulted an innocent man and you offer, in mitigation, his wife had a bump in the car because she was not driving safely. He could have killed the guy. By offering a weak excuse on his behalf, you are supporting his violent and unnecessary assault.

Perhaps you are the ignorant one.
Click to expand...
You deserve what you get because you're accusing me of the exact opposite of what I've said

My original statement ..

The story behind it (according to social media) is the guys heavily pregnant wife ended up crashing her car due to the slowdown of the traffic when the protestors came onto the road .. Although it doesn't excuse his behavior - it's not a simple case of "man loses it over protestors"
Click to expand...

That's it. Context ... I've highligted the part where your inability to read and understand English has triggered you ..

Now if you want your confirmation bias to keep digging the hole for you - be my guest ..
 
Rauko said:
The story behind it (according to social media) is the guys heavily pregnant wife ended up crashing her car due to the slowdown of the traffic when the protestors came onto the road .. Although it doesn't excuse his behavior - it's not a simple case of "man loses it over protestors"
Click to expand...
Looks to me like hes on the other side of the road, theres no reason to crash anyway if she was driving properly
 
Redka said:
I can agree with the cause but disagree with their methods.
Click to expand...
This is a crucial comment in all this. I've had people on here round on me for complaining about JSO saying "yeah, well done of us care about the world our grandkids will inherit" which is such a weird response. Let's not assume that disagreeing with one thing means we disagree with something else
 
jam69 said:
Looks to me like hes on the other side of the road, theres no reason to crash anyway if she was driving properly
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing one way or the other .. talk to the guy about it .. I'm just adding to the circumstances and the bits that the BBC story never mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Funky_Chicken said:
We’re already seeing 15 minutes cities spring up with the idea of restricting everyone’s travel to their own little space inside each city.
Click to expand...

Jeez. This is how far away we are from ever having any sort of progress in this country now. A political movement springs up to say people should have shops and a GPs office within 15 minutes of where they live and folk are so programmed by right wing interests that they're immediately hostile to it and think its a conspiracy to take away holidays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top