Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If it is authorised then the council needs to

> explain why; XR are not a group they should be

> supporting or encouraging.


Why, exactly?


This is the most important issue of our time, and so far as I can see the vast majority of people are just hoping it will go away.


We are actually on the brink of extinction, with a very tiny window of opportunity left to do something about it.


The climate scientists' pleas are relegated to the parts of the online news that nobody looks at.


We should be grateful to XR for actually doing something to make people realise what's going on, instead of burying their heads in the sand.


If I was younger and in better health, I would join them.

Completely agree Sue.


The news has cast them as trouble makers, but really the fight for Climate Change and awareness is essential now more than ever and its a movement to support.


People are content to ignore it as they don't see their worn small world impacted.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If it is authorised then the council needs to

> > explain why; XR are not a group they should be

> > supporting or encouraging.

>

> Why, exactly?

>

> This is the most important issue of our time, and

> so far as I can see the vast majority of people

> are just hoping it will go away.

>

> We are actually on the brink of extinction, with a

> very tiny window of opportunity left to do

> something about it.

>

> The climate scientists' pleas are relegated to the

> parts of the online news that nobody looks at.

>

> We should be grateful to XR for actually doing

> something to make people realise what's going on,

> instead of burying their heads in the sand.

>

> If I was younger and in better health, I would

> join them.



Well said Sue. The EDF demographic has really changed with people living in DV commenting negatively on events in ED. Bring back Louisa.

Maybe, playing the devil's advocate, humans shouldn't be stopped from going extinct as the planet would be better off without us and given a short period of time (geology speaking) it will recover and thrive just like it did post the dinosaur extinction event.

My view is that the law should be enforced regardless of who is protesting about what. It shouldn?t be subjective based on someone at the council?s view of whether protesters are good or bad. Otherwise next time you might find them allowing groups you don?t approve of camping there (or on a similar note they might find it hard to justify not allowing groups that they don?t approve of there).


If the council wishes to authorise the protest then they should be up front about doing so and say why this case is special.

I find it quite depressing to read such hostility about a group of people who are standing up for you and your children and grandchildren against the horrors of climate change and habitat distruction.We have just a few short years to turn this around and yet some contributers seem to be more bothered about possible minor disruptions in the park. You shouldn't assume that they will leave a mess for the Council to clear up or have a negative impact on the park. Instead of condemning them out of hand why not go down there and actually talk to them and listen to their point of view. You might actually come away with a different opinion of them.

Well that?s not quite right, if you read the thread some people support and some do not...not sure it?s hostile.


I think that it will be an interesting few weeks and it will be a good opportunity for locals to chat with people with the same world view or a different world view, the Rye will survive two weeks and all of us actually. They seem a very committed group of people who obviously care about all our futures....so maybe we can collectively give them a break whatever our thoughts.

It?s not hostility in my case. I just think that rules are rules and the council shouldn?t allow any protest group, whatever its belief, brazenly break them. It?s irrelevant whether I agree with them or not, or whether they are well intentioned, or whether they are nice people, or whether they are going to leave a mess. They can camp there with authorisation, and presumably the council has a policy on what it does or doesn?t authorise. But even if they?re right/ lovely/ tidy they shouldn?t be above the rule of law.
As I understand it via my own secret sources, the council have been negotiating with them to use this space for quite a while and it is unofficially official.They have promised to leave no trace.it?s not ?their cause?, it?s all ?our cause?, whether you like the tactics or not.

Reclaim These Streets took their fight for permission to hold a vigil for Sarah Everard (during lockdown) all the way to the High Court. They lost and went ahead anyway. When amplified speeches began, the police moved in to break it up. The attendees resisted and so they used force to remove people.


I thought that was appalling.


So would be interested to learn whether LegalAlien and Nigello?s ?rules are rules? dogma applies to that episode too; or needs to be refined to rules are rules - most of the time, and I get to choose when??

Yes it does. I think the police could have handled it better on the ground, but I don?t think protests should have been allowed in breach of lockdown rules, even though I didn?t agree with many of the lockdown rules. It?s why I also agree with the police enforcing rules against the party gate culprits.

I wonder if Emma Thompson will be jetting in first-class from LA to join the protest like she did on the Oxford Street sit-in.....ahem.....


XR engage in illegal indiscriminate tactics designed to disrupt everyday life for many - there is no way the council should be encouraging that by giving them somewhere to base their attacks from. XR has spawned Insulate Britain and the Tyre Slashers (or whatever they are called) all of whom follow the same disruption tactics.


Whether we agree or not with the over-riding aims of the groups the problem is the council set a precedent by allowing this to take place. And it is not just the cost to the council, this will likely require policing and there is a high chance we will see protests by XR in the local area that will cause massive disruption to everyone.


So whilst a lot on here say...yes I will be welcoming them...would they say the same if it was a group they did not agree with? I suspect not.

Rockets wrote:


> So whilst a lot on here say...yes I will be

> welcoming them...would they say the same if it was

> a group they did not agree with? I suspect not.


Re: this. Probably depends how the group behaves no? Personally, I'm keeping an open mind, as I would do for any group doing the same whether or not I agree with their mission.


HP

XR's stated aim this weekend and to 17th is to cause maximum unexpected disruption.Camp is a base and also a political presence. Clearly disruption is designed to be provocative and not legal. I have emailed Dulwich Hill councillors to ask them if they support it?

Well, they haven't been behaving very well thus far, they were at it today closing Tower Bridge and even Sadiq said their protests are counter-productive.


Yet a few miles south Southwark are providing them a place to "regenerate" after their attacks - it's ludicrous.


They are promising to grind London to a halt over the next week so the camp must be related to these efforts:


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/08/extinction-rebellion-fossil-fuels-protest-grind-london-halt

https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/extinction-rebellion-london-protest-roadblocks/

Wil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> XR's stated aim this weekend and to 17th is to

> cause maximum unexpected disruption.Camp is a base

> and also a political presence. Clearly disruption

> is designed to be provocative and not legal. I

> have emailed Dulwich Hill councillors to ask them

> if they support it?



Well many, including climate scientists, have played nicely to try to get this issue properly addressed by those who have the power and means to do so, and seem to have got nowhere.


It seems to me that the only way left to drum into those people's apparently thick skulls that doing something immediate and radical to slow down climate change is necessary IS to cause disruption, and to be provocative.


We should all be grateful, for our children's and grandchildrens' sakes, that XR are willing to do this.


Frankly unless someone is actually being physically harmed by XR's activities, I would say illegality is irrelevant.


Probably what the suffragettes did was illegal. There are probably lots of other instances where "illegal" action eventually brought about change.


This cause isn't something you can "agree" or "disagree" with. It's about the continued existence of the human race.


Though I do have some sympathy with those who think the planet would be better off without us.

Honest and thought provoking Sue. The Suffragettes were brave and right. They used illegality politically, in the same way XR do. They accepted it when the authorities upheld the law. That's what they expected, even used in some ways. Is our council and our police force going to uphold the law, make excuses for them? Or are they complicit?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you, I will be vigilant
    • @Sue said: nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? This is the point. Adults are meant to teach their children by example. It sounds as though the adult guardian/ father in this case did not react appropriately. Had a truly sincere apology been given,  I suspect the OP would not have posted on here. It is possible the OP snapped in the heat of the moment, but they were possibly startled because they were hit from behind? If we are startled it can be instinctive to initially react with anger. I also agree that it would be highly irresponsible to let any very young child ride or walk or do anything on a busy public street without supervision- most of all to protect the child. If in this case the child was out of the adult's line of sight that is perhaps another indication that the father needs a refresh in appropriate behaviour around a child, as well as his manners.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...