Clash between 'climate-change' protesters and cops in UK

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/17-1

"concerted disorder'

Silly climate change protesters.

Go police!

Maybe the protesters should have though "Maybe tearing down the fence and trying to storm the place MIGHT get me arested." They're lucky riot police didn't open fire with real bullets, for Christ sake.

they are just rioting to riot, for the heck of it not for some cause

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Go police!

Maybe the protesters should have though "Maybe tearing down the fence and trying to storm the place MIGHT get me arested." They're lucky riot police didn't open fire with real bullets, for Christ sake.

Yay!

mattabesta wrote:

they are just rioting to riot, for the heck of it not for some cause

fuck you, the revolution will start as soon as i set fire to my trashcan in the street and i start throwing stones, long live the revolution

Tyrlop wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

they are just rioting to riot, for the heck of it not for some cause

fuck you, the revolution will start as soon as i set fire to my trashcan in the street and i start throwing stones, long live the revolution

Hahahahaha.

When I see stuff like this it reminds me of my self when I was 12, which doesn't say a lot about these protesters.

But seriously, I love these guys <3

There are some pretty sadistic sentiments from rightists on this site eh?

At least these people were decent enough to get off their asses for a worthy cause.

I'm not about to condemn people using not-so-desperate measures in pretty desperate times.

So storming a power plant with the intention of shutting it down is a GOOD thing?

I'm not saying I don't suport them, I'm just saying these people, like most who try these things are idiots. You either have people who do nothing but chant and sit, or those who blow shit up. Two extremes, neither being effective.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

So storming a power plant with the intention of shutting it down is a GOOD thing?

I'm not saying I don't suport them, I'm just saying these people, like most who try these things are idiots. You either have people who do nothing but chant and sit, or those who blow shit up. Two extremes, neither being effective.

its symbolic, ofcourse they don't really believe that they are gonna shut it down, maybe if they where really smart, but i doubt it.

Quote :

So storming a power plant with the intention of shutting it down is a GOOD thing?

Depends on the outcome; i certainly don't think it's inherently bad or good.

It's symbolic more than anything. Even if they shut it down, they wouldn't be able to keep it that way with their small numbers. But they'd get a hell of a lot more attention that way than holding a vigil outside, which corporate media is trained very well to sweep under the carpet.

Quote :

I'm not saying I don't suport them, I'm just saying these people, like most who try these things are idiots. You either have people who do nothing but chant and sit, or those who blow shit up. Two extremes, neither being effective.

Conclusion with no analysis. Those aren't the two extremes, and there are many of those (unfortunately only leftist activists) who analyze the effectiveness of their strategy and tactics to be as efficacious as possible.

This is far better than the alternatives: Protesting to little/no avail, or dogmatically employing one tired strategy to effect social change (like pacifism as an ideological and practical platform).

EDIT: Damn, nice Tyrlop

Quote :

But they'd get a hell of a lot more attention that way than holding a vigil outside, which corporate media is trained very well to sweep under the carpet.

BIG difference between sweeping something under the rug and not giving a shit.

Quote :

This is far better than the alternatives: Protesting to little/no avail, or dogmatically employing one tired strategy to effect social change (like pacifism as an ideological and practical platform).

There's many things they could try other than inefectual protesting and getting violent like psychos, like, and this is something Greenpeace hates, because their entire mentality and mission is assinine since they don't know what the hell it entails, try for alternative fuel sources. And ethanol isn't really much of an option, due to cost and resources needed to create it. ucear, something greenpeace HATES, is actually a viable alternative, especially if they'd allow the newer reactors, which they don't, which are safer AND more effecient.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

BIG difference between sweeping something under the rug and not giving a shit.

Might as well be the same thing with corporate media. If they ignore something like that, aren't they basically hiding it from their viewers. I mean, i can understand not covering every last piece of news that comes your way, but climate change is of monumental importance, at least according to climate scientists, as opposed to those in the employ of Phillip-Morris, exxon, etc.

Their agenda is overwhelmingly obvious to the astute observer.

Quote :

There's many things they could try other than inefectual protesting and getting violent like psychos...

There's either a huge misunderstanding, or an equally huge exaggeration of this violence. Or possibly we should think that violence against property justifies [an increase of] violence against people.

Quote :

...this is something Greenpeace hates, because their entire mentality and mission is assinine since they don't know what the hell it entails, try for alternative fuel sources.

I don't believe the article mentioned greenpeace activists.

I highly doubt that any of those protesters are against alternative fuel, but rather as citizens of a capitalist (imperialist) state, they have no say in what companies do regarding alternative energy.

Quote :

And ethanol isn't really much of an option, due to cost and resources needed to create it.

Not to mention the starvation and economic depression it would proliferate (c'mon, you should at least keep to the precedent you've set [the 'like psychos' one] and call the people who are now seeking to use ethanol... what, sadistic genocidal maniacs?)

Quote :

ucear, something greenpeace HATES, is actually a viable alternative, especially if they'd allow the newer reactors, which they don't, which are safer AND more effecient.

viable alternative for what purpose? As an temporary substitute i'd agree, but i've read nothing that has convinced me of its viability as a primary energy source (possibly you could point me to something that says otherwise?).

Safer is key. Not safe. More efficient, but not necessarily for a long term. This would entail turning land that people now occupy into mining grounds which, if i'm not mistaken, ruins them completely. I would also think that there are still risks involved in mining (let alone mining uranium), though i'm not up to date on mining techniques of the 21st century.

But this is also somewhat besides the point since the people involved in these protests have no say in what exxon or any other company does with their* resources (both labor and material).

*Emphasis because we are putting energy resources in the hands of privately owned companies, which essentially fucks all of us if we can mitigate the effects of climate change (which most everything i've read suggests we can still do)

Quote :

change is of monumental importance

What would they say that hasn;t been said before. Remember, they want ratings. People tune out when they ehar the same thing too many times. And really, it would be the same thing. PEople don't need to be told, anyway, that this kind of protest is going on. They already know. They want top be told some new news, kep up to date with new information, not the same old.

Quote :

Their agenda is overwhelmingly obvious to the astute observer.

Agenda.... Dude, you REALLY come off like as a conspiracy theorist nut from Fox news.

Quote :

Or possibly we should think that violence against property justifies [an increase of] violence against people.

When a large mob is trying to perpetuate violoence, violence that may hurt other human lives, since that power plant isn't automated I don;t think, then yes. Yes it is. What,a re you going to take the mob's word they won;t hurt anybody? They do that kind of thing left and right, an event which, I should note, is often kept out of the news. God, if this were greenpeace they'd have brought guns.

Quote :

I don't believe the article mentioned greenpeace activists.

My bad.

Quote :

but rather as citizens of a capitalist (imperialist) state, they have no say in what companies do regarding alternative energy.

They damn well do! They do't buy from these companies, and they get thousands to do so as well! They try to get sanctions against these peopel! Hit them in the wallet! Which, I should note, at the end the dude says the companie's already looking into alternative sources and trying for cleaner coal and nuclear. Are they telling the truth? Probaby not, but still.

Quote :

Not to mention the starvation and economic depression it would proliferate

Both true. Either new famrland would need to be created to grow, or existing would be taken from food. And jobs would be lost left and right. Course, t;s not like a full change would ever occurr, at least not for sever decades, but still.

Quote :

(c'mon, you should at least keep to the precedent you've set [the 'like psychos' one] and call the people who are now seeking to use ethanol... what, sadistic genocidal maniacs?)

What? What the hell are you talking about? First, most don;t realise the effects of ethanol. Unlike the protesters, who know full well what they're doing. And if can;t tell sarcasm and name callin, then dude, get out of your house once in a while, shit....

Quote :

viable alternative for what purpose? As an temporary substitute i'd agree, but i've read nothing that has convinced me of its viability as a primary energy source

How could it not be? Next to no pollution, a site being constructed in I think Nevada to contain, safely and securely, the waste that IS created. How would it be temporary? What, until the uranium runs out? True, it IS temporary in that case, but that's not a problem we'd have to face for about 50-100 years, at our present rate of consumtion, and hopefully by then we'll have gotten something else. Donate to laboratories, kids! As for viability, what do you mean by that, I dot get it. It IS a primary energy source for many cities on the planet. So, I don;t really get what you're saying here. Oh,a nd I forgot this. Your kow te LHC? Well, one of the things they want to do is turn radioactive waste into something that won't poison our great great grandchildren. So yay.

Quote :

Safer is key. Not safe.

You're right. it will never be perfectly safe. Neither is wind, though. Ever see what happens when one of those fans breaks off and goes hurtlin a mile away into some guy's house? I have.So what's your point?

Quote :

More efficient, but not necessarily for a long term.

That's why you upgrade, which current sanctions prevent.

Quote :

This would entail turning land that people now occupy into mining grounds which, if i'm not mistaken, ruins them completely.

They already do this for every other resource. And modern mining tecniques reduce the issues thereing significantly. Besides, if a town needs to be moved, it's really not that expensive, and is likely cheaper than paying out the residents. Assuming the mine would be that large. Hell, the town might even WANT it. Think of the job creation.

Quote :

I would also think that there are still risks involved in mining (let alone mining uranium), though i'm not up to date on mining techniques of the 21st century.

I hate whn I don;t read ahead....

Quote :

But this is also somewhat besides the point since the people involved in these protests have no say in what exxon or any other company does with their* resources (both labor and material).

Again, hti them in the wallet. Exon and such are doomed companies, then. When there is no more oil, they're fucked. The people are leaving oil at an increasing rate, and then they'll be fucked then, too. Either they'll change their product to what the people want, or they die. SO yes, the people do have a say.All they have to do is something, much like I said a few paragraphs above.

Quote :

Emphasis because we are putting energy resources in the hands of privately owned companies,

Never said yhis was a good thing. Corporations suck. Capitalism can not have all powerful bodies that monopolise. That's where government regulation is needed. The game needs rules, and over the last several decades, especially the last eight years, those rules have been stripped off one by one. Though once again, remember, hit them in their wallets. In case you haven;t noticed, many companies ARE changing these things, ebcause they see that's what the people want, more and more. It may only be money to them, but you can use that to your advantage. It's slow yes, but effective.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

What would they say that hasn;t been said before. Remember, they want ratings. People tune out when they ehar the same thing too many times. And really, it would be the same thing. PEople don't need to be told, anyway, that this kind of protest is going on. They already know. They want top be told some new news, kep up to date with new information, not the same old.

They report on climate change happenings every so often, but don't delve into the content of it. Independant media, however, does so.

Quote :

Agenda.... Dude, you REALLY come off like as a conspiracy theorist nut from Fox news.

Why would Fox news criticize themselves for having an agenda?...
Anyway, if you watch/read independant media sources and compare that to corporate media, the difference in reporting and content becomes apparent as night and day. So are you seriously saying that there is no underlying cause for that dichotomy?

Quote :

When a large mob is trying to perpetuate violoence, violence that may hurt other human lives, since that power plant isn't automated I don;t think, then yes. Yes it is. What,a re you going to take the mob's word they won;t hurt anybody? They do that kind of thing left and right, an event which, I should note, is often kept out of the news. God, if this were greenpeace they'd have brought guns.

We surely take the police' words for it.

The question should be, 'why would they hurt anyone'? What reason do they have to hurt innocent people just doing their jobs.

Quote :

They damn well do! They do't buy from these companies, and they get thousands to do so as well! They try to get sanctions against these peopel! Hit them in the wallet!

Don't buy necessities... Okay, and the alternative here is what, living in the dark? Until they have (or, if there is one, until they can afford) an alternative energy source.

Quote :

What? What the hell are you talking about? First, most don;t realise the effects of ethanol. Unlike the protesters, who know full well what they're doing.

Policy planners know damn well what the effect of ethanol production is. And if they don't, well, they shouldn't be planning policy.

Quote :

How could it not be? Next to no pollution, a site being constructed in I think Nevada to contain, safely and securely, the waste that IS created. How would it be temporary? What, until the uranium runs out?

Pollution would rise with consumption, no?

And, as i said, there are consequences to making it primary.

Quote :

True, it IS temporary in that case, but that's not a problem we'd have to face for about 50-100 years, at our present rate of consumtion, and hopefully by then we'll have gotten something else.

... So then it's temporary. And our current rate of consumption wouldn't be our rate of consumption if it were to replace fossil fuels.

Quote :

Donate to laboratories, kids! As for viability, what do you mean by that, I dot get it. It IS a primary energy source for many cities on the planet. So, I don;t really get what you're saying here.

Many, not most, as far as i can tell.

Quote :

Oh,a nd I forgot this. Your kow te LHC? Well, one of the things they want to do is turn radioactive waste into something that won't poison our great great grandchildren. So yay.

They want to? or they can?

Quote :

You're right. it will never be perfectly safe. Neither is wind, though. Ever see what happens when one of those fans breaks off and goes hurtlin a mile away into some guy's house? I have.So what's your point?

I was referring to the energy, not the way it's gathered. Even regarding that, it seems renewable energy (giant fans of death included) is far safer than nuclear waste.

Quote :

That's why you upgrade, which current sanctions prevent.

One more compelling reason to destroy the state.

Jokes aside, you said yourself that supply won't last more than another century (that's if consumption doesn't increase, which it would have to), so is upgrading really worth it?

Quote :

They already do this for every other resource.

And that's a problem.

Quote :

And modern mining tecniques reduce the issues thereing significantly.

That doesn't seem very reassuring. Exposure is still a problem.

Quote :

Besides, if a town needs to be moved, it's really not that expensive, and is likely cheaper than paying out the residents. Assuming the mine would be that large. Hell, the town might even WANT it. Think of the job creation.

And if they didn't want it, and rather wanted to keep their town and way of life, they'd have to be forcefully removed, or else we'd just have to deal with it.

Quote :

Again, hti them in the wallet. Exon and such are doomed companies, then. When there is no more oil, they're fucked. The people are leaving oil at an increasing rate, and then they'll be fucked then, too. Either they'll change their product to what the people want, or they die. SO yes, the people do have a say.All they have to do is something, much like I said a few paragraphs above.

Seems to me we'd be the ones getting fucked if we waited til all the oil was gone.

Quote :

Never said yhis was a good thing. Corporations suck. Capitalism can not have all powerful bodies that monopolise. That's where government regulation is needed. The game needs rules, and over the last several decades, especially the last eight years, those rules have been stripped off one by one. Though once again, remember, hit them in their wallets. In case you haven;t noticed, many companies ARE changing these things, ebcause they see that's what the people want, more and more. It may only be money to them, but you can use that to your advantage. It's slow yes, but effective.

If it's slow it loses a lot of effectiveness, especially when the problem is imminent.

And the state much more often than not takes the side of capitalists (hence why the US spent 103.5 billion dollars already this year protecting oil), unless there is a severe amount of public pressure (which is usually abated with help from corporate media; ya, it's a conspiracy ).

Quote :

They report on climate change happenings every so often, but don't delve into the content of it.

Because it;s been heard already. When there is new info, they do report it. I've seen it, at least.

Quote :

Why would Fox news criticize themselves for having an agenda?...

I said you sounded LIKE them. not that they critisized themselves.

Quote :

Anyway, if you watch/read independant media sources and compare that to corporate media, the difference in reporting and content becomes apparent as night and day. So are you seriously saying that there is no underlying cause for that dichotomy?

Actually I prefer The Young Turks, an independant. And honestly, it's simply a different way of reporting, method, but content tends to be the same, even in many of the others I've seen.

Quote :

We surely take the police' words for it.

Word for what, exactly?

Quote :

The question should be, 'why would they hurt anyone'? What reason do they have to hurt innocent people just doing their jobs.

And then do you LET them hurt those people? Because more often than not, instead of waiting for a responce, they often IMMEADIATELY go for the violence. AD THEN talk, usually with threats for more violence. People tend to not take kindly to taht, and deny them based on principal, not just money. I do, at elast, and if I had had a police force to help me,I would have used them. And I'm not saying the police are controlled by these people, the corporations, because they're not. They treat everyone the same. it's simply if one know their way around the law or not. So put forth legislature to close those loopholes. As for bribery, well, that is a problem yes, and when most of the police force finds out about it, they do something about it.

Quote :

Don't buy necessities... Okay, and the alternative here is what, living in the dark? Until they have (or, if there is one, until they can afford) an alternative energy source.

You can go for/support a company that DOES give you waht you want. Eventually the power companies will learn, and they are (Hey look, it works!) what peopel want, and they'll give it to make more money. It's slow, but non violent. And then you won;t be hurt by the polioce, the peacekeepers.

Quote :

Policy planners know damn well what the effect of ethanol production is. And if they don't, well, they shouldn't be planning policy.

They don't, or are bought. So blame the people who voted for them, not the idiots in charge/those playing the game. Many of those who vote for these morons are willingly ignorant, most of the time.

Quote :

Pollution would rise with consumption, no?

And that's what the facilty and the LHC are for.

Quote :

And, as i said, there are consequences to making it primary.

And those are....

Quote :

... So then it's temporary.

So is everythign else. And those that are renwewable, like wind and solar, are so far behind and so inefficent as to be almost a joke, not to mention the cost involved. However many companies are trying to MAKE them viable. Why? Because that's what the people want, and that's where they'll make money. Besides, the smart ones know that resources dfor the others will run out, so they kind of want to keep on going, you know?

Quote :

And our current rate of consumption wouldn't be our rate of consumption if it were to replace fossil fuels.

So going nuclear is BETTER? Now wholly sure what you're saying.

Quote :

Many, not most, as far as i can tell.

So? Why not make them most? Oh yes, because many climate changers, like these protesters, know nothing about teir own cause, and know nothing about nuclear other than "nuclear is bad".

Quote :

They want to? or they can?

They know it will. particle accelerators can, it;s just the ones we have are tiny, and far too expensive to be viable.

Quote :

I was referring to the energy, not the way it's gathered. Even regarding that, it seems renewable energy (giant fans of death included) is far safer than nuclear waste.

And if that nuclear waste, thanks to the LHC, could then be sued for toher purposes? Make industrial gold, more fuel, or whatever? The waste is dangerous, yes. SO that's why we want to remove it, and change it. Which we potentially could, if the LHC works right. As for the energy itself, yes, it CAN be dangerous, but we can limit that danger to next to nothing. And if it goes wrong, it would most likely be a Three mile Island. Which was harmless. SCARY, but nothing bad happened. We even learned from it, which was the best part.

Quote :

One more compelling reason to destroy the state.

No, that;s why you get rid of the idiots in the climate change side. They caused it. Polititas gave the people what they wanted. Even when the people don;t knw what they want. If they hadn;t, you'd still be against them for denying the people.

Quote :

Jokes aside, you said yourself that supply won't last more than another century (that's if consumption doesn't increase, which it would have to), so is upgrading really worth it?

Until we have an alternative, thus attempting to remove the effects of coal and other fossil fuels in the meantime? Yes. Yes it is.

Quote :

And that's a problem.

They don;t have any other way of acessing those resources.

Quote :

That doesn't seem very reassuring. Exposure is still a problem.

If you mean uranium, I;m pretty sure the unrefined form is completely harmless unless you, like, directly ingest it, or something. And if people are, something VERY wrong has happened and something's broken.

Quote :

And if they didn't want it, and rather wanted to keep their town and way of life, they'd have to be forcefully removed, or else we'd just have to deal with it.

I agree this is a bit of an issue. Cours,e most of these people are just stuborn idiots, but nonetheless humans, ALL humans, need resources. Do you have an alternative? If you can give another site to mine, great. I agree that they shouldn;t do this just to make a bucjk, foce them ot leave, I mean, but humans, again, need resources.

Quote :

Seems to me we'd be the ones getting fucked if we waited til all the oil was gone.

So woul the companies that were stupid and went bankrupt. The smart ones, blah blah blah. Said it before. And why would you WANT to wait til then? The companies aren't.

Quote :

If it's slow it loses a lot of effectiveness, especially when the problem is imminent.

Common propoganda by the climte change lobby. You know they said, in 95 that we only had a decade before it was ireversible? Then 08 would be too late. And so forth. They're like the poeple saying Jesus will return. Difference is, one WILL happen. And we SHOULD do something about it. And lo and behold, the world IS. More and more IS done. And continuing to BE done. SO there's no real reason for those people to do that. They want to shut down the plant? What if that plant was the only thing supplying a populace? Are their hospitals supposedto just refil their emergency generators until a whole new wind farm or solar fam is built? Agains,t these people are extreme, and barely know anything about what they're protesting.

Quote :

And the state much more often than not takes the side of capitalists (hence why the US spent 103.5 billion dollars already this year protecting oil), unless there is a severe amount of public pressure (which is usually abated with help from corporate media; ya, it's a conspiracy ).

Admitedly, no argument against you here, but one. The capitalists, the companies, are in fact, once again, GENERALLY TRYING. They do, or they fail. As for corporate media, like who, exactly? I just want to know who you think this is.