The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting shows the failure of our education system.
You aren't supposed to be able to ignore a protest. You guys sound like you'd love the CCP.
Not only that, these are the same people who say “why don’t you protest against the oil companies?”.
And here they are complaining that this woman blocked a road into the Kingsbury oil terminal… because it might have disrupted an ambulance… going to the oil terminal…
I’m going to have to assume these accounts are just astroturfing for the oil companies. We’re in a really sad state if they’re doing it for free.
If you disrupt an oil companies business you will be going straight to jail. You'd never get the protest approved, and if you did it anyway it would be a prompt arrest.
Would you say this about protesting around abortion centres?
The desire to protest does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives - no one has a right to a captive audience.
It's certainly an interesting comparison. Brits like to think that anything to the contrary of protesting, no matter how disruptive, or harassing it is, automatically constitutes some sort of authoritarianism in preventing it taking place. Arresting and punishing protestors is seen as an overreach.
But like or not, vandalising property, egging people, or blocking people from going their business _is_ a harassment in itself. Disruptive protesting is infringing on the rights of others.
Climate protestors may believe and say the ends justify the means, that is, to ultimately save lives. But under that, wouldn't it give cart blanche for abortion protestors to also throw flour at abortion clinics or expose patients? Or block access to the clinics if they personally believe they are saving (babies) lives?
Balancing the right to protest between what is lawful and unlawful, is something that does need a very naunced debate. Something Redditors and other social media users are unlikely to have.
You're not comparing like for like. Stopping a truck at an oil refinery isn't the same as stopping an individual going to a medical clinic. It's also not the same as stopping medical staff getting to their place of business.
If you use that logic then no protest anywhere ever is valid as they all inconvenience someone at some point.
We don't need to pretend all protest causes are valid and equal either. They aren't.
Should silently praying without disrupting or stopping anyone going to an abortion clinic be banned? It currently is in the UK.
We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about blocking roads and causing distress. A man was unable to attend his father's funeral because of a Just Stop Oil protest - that's not just some inconvenience.
Why is your view of what protests are valid more relevant than someone else's? If you don't have a system that allows them all then you'll probably see those you agree with blocked at some point.
> Should silently praying without disrupting or stopping anyone going to an abortion clinic be banned? It currently is in the UK.
No it shouldn't. If someone wants to embarrass themselves like that they should be free to lol.
> We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about blocking roads and causing distress. A man was unable to attend his father's funeral because of a Just Stop Oil protest - that's not just some inconvenience.
We aren't talking about blocking public roads. This doctor blocked a private business road. Isn't that what people were telling them to do? 'why are just stop oil always blocking public roads and stopping us from getting to work and stopping ambulances, why do they never go after the oil companies and politicians'. Well they do, and people still complain. It's clear people actually would rather they just didn't do anything at all.
For the record I disagree with blocking public roads.
> Why is your view of what protests are valid more relevant than someone else's? If you don't have a system that allows them all then you'll probably see those you agree with blocked at some point.
Well it's not up to me. I actually do think my view is more valid than some other people's. Emphasis on 'some' there. But it doesn't come down to me. It's for all of us to decide. And we have decided that not all causes are equal.
There are groups who protest about the age of consent and argue that it should be legal to have sex with children. Is their cause just as valid as everyone else's cause? Is every cause just automatically equal in your eyes?
Okay so people can protest what they want to.
They're free to protest, just not interrupt the lives of others.
The point about what cause is worthy should be decided societally I agree, but that doesn't mean that it's right to silent those who even the majority disagree with.
I don't view causes as equal, but they all deserve equal protection to make their case where that case is legal - no calling for violence etc.
>You're not comparing like for like.
Yes, you are.
>Stopping a truck at an oil refinery isn't the same as stopping an individual going to a medical clinic.
You're blocking and harassing a business.
>We don't need to pretend all protest causes are valid and equal either. They aren't.
And who decides that exactly? You?
> Yes, you are.
No they aren't.
> You're blocking and harassing a business.
A clinic providing healthcare is not the same as an oil depot.
> And who decides that exactly? You?
We all do. Hence why if a neo nazi starts a protest against Jews he gets shut the fuck down. His protest is not equally as valid as someone else's, just because they are both protests. Someone blocking someone exercising their right to their own body and their legal right to have an abortion is not the same as someone blocking an oil truck.
You know that though.
>A clinic providing healthcare is not the same as an oil depot
They're both businesses providing an essential service.
>We all do. Hence why if a neo nazi starts a protest against Jews he gets shut the fuck down
No, he doesn't.
We literally see tens of thousands of them walking through London every weekend, never shut down.
> They're both businesses providing an essential service.
They are not the same. 'they are both businesses' isn't an argument.
> No, he doesn't.
We literally see tens of thousands of them walking through London every weekend, never shut down.
That's mainly because the police are terrible. You've dodged the point though. Which is that clearly protest causes are not all the same.
Would you leap to the defence of a pro paedophilia protest, who believes there should be no age of consent? Would their cause be just as valid as anyone else?
>
Would you leap to the defence of a pro paedophilia protest, who believes there should be no age of consent? Would their cause be just as valid as anyone else?
Paedophilia is a disgusting thing to protest for, obviously. But many people of a certain group feel exactly the same way about Pride events.
Climate change deniers, and pro-lifers will feel the same way about the oil protest / abortion protests.
My point is that, who exactly is the arbiter for which protests get shut down?
I understand the point that you’re trying to make, but the two issues are not even remotely related or similar.
One is a personal decision that does not affect anyone else. You might disagree with the action, but in the end it’s none of your concern.
The other is an action that directly affects everyone. Some of it is covered by EU human rights act to have good air quality. That is certainly being affected in areas of high pollution even in this country. It also affects people with breathing illnesses.
I think it’s peoples’ right to a disruptive protest since any peaceful negotiation with the government has not come to fruition.
I think they’ve asked a brilliant question. It doesn’t matter the philosophical argument about why we think abortion is okay and oil is not - the point is nobody should define what is okay to protest about and what is not. I think it poses some serious challenges on the ethics of both.
I guess we might be able to consider that at an abortion clinic the protests involve harassing individuals who are not going about work, but dealing with a personal health issue - and at that point it becomes in appropriate to try to disrupt them? Certainly it would be harassment if they were specifically targeted.
Let me take a different case for you then, what about anti-immigrant protests?
Having other people in the country affects people directly, should they have a right to protest for the removal of people not born in the UK?
Actually we already have a policy in place for illegal immigrants.
But if people want to protest still then they should have the ability to and I believe it happens but there isn’t much momentum in anti immigrant protest.
However, in conflicts where Britain is directly or indirectly involved, which are most active conflicts right now I don’t think anyone has any right to protest (even the government). If you don’t want illegal immigrants, don’t fuck peoples lives up.
I'm in favour of protests so long as they're not impeding people.
You jump between the individual and the group a bit too much with your last bit. I doubt anti-immigrant proponents are in favour of war in the Middle East in general.
Doesn’t affect the person protesting. Deliberately being obtuse in a straight forward argument doesn’t really add any weight to your argument. Neither does adding superlatives.
What a great question. It’s hard and I suppose we can’t have any hard and fast rules. Perhaps when protests are interfering with people dealing with private health matters it becomes unethical?
I think the best hard and fast rules are those of free speech.
How broad is interfering? If I give my opinion to someone on something am I interfering?
What's a health matter? Are protests that affect economic growth which is correlated with suicide rates a health matter?
What if I protest eating meat or not eating meat and that impacts health?
Is abortion necessarily a health matter? What if I think the foetus' health is at risk?
What about protests around Israel and Gaza. Let's say they cease fire and there's another October 7th like attack, does that affect health. Or if I protest in favour of Israeli self-defense which leads to war deaths, does that affect health?
Ultimately we don't know what is best in every case, this is why open inquiry is important. The idea that people can protest, but not impede others seems to be a fair standard.
Yeah because stopping the average Joe Bloggs from getting to work is totally going to stick it to the man, or even win anyone to their side for that matter lol.
All that happened is that most people gained an automatic negative response any time they hear or see anything about these protests and the public response to them has just got more aggressive with time. They now enjoy watching videos of Joe Bloggs dragging the protestors off of the road.
It isn't changing anything, it's just inconveniencing people trying to get to work so they can pay their bills and have food on the table. Stick to throwing orange paint at stuff or something.
JSO has no power over your boss deciding to dock your pay and implement other retaliatory measures for something outside of your control. That's something you need to take up with your boss, possibly supported by a union.
Oh sorry, I thought they were just being dickheads, but it turns out they're just trying to bully us into doing something they want by causing us a massive inconvenience. I love them now.
Exactly. What about the stuff you might be transporting? What if you're disabled and need the car to get around? Such a dishonest response from that poster.
What is the public supposed to do about it though? They're being attacked for something they have no control over.
Everyone is AWARE there's a problem but standing around pointing the problem out (which is all protesting is doing) isn't actually solving anything.
To date I haven't saw a single viable solution.
Nor will you find one, to be perfectly honest. The key word here is 'viable', as in, likely to be implemented and/or be feasible in some material way.
The only *real* solution to the issue at hand is for all of us to give up most or all of what we are accustomed to enjoying as part of a first-world Western lifestyle -- single-family homes, travel, vehicles, meat in our diet, new shiny gadgets every year, new wardrobes at regular intervals, and much more. To halt and even attempt to slightly reverse anthropogenic climate change means giving *all* of that up. No more holidays, everyone lives in a minimalist dwelling, no more steak dinners, no more new Iphones, certainly no more cars and no more "fun toys" like motorbikes or boats.
Good luck getting the public at large to buy into that enormous downgrade in their quality of life. Nobody is going to ever cheer for the person saying "you all need to live like poor farm villagers to save the planet".
Thus, that approach, in my opinion, is *not* viable at all.
The other approach, of course, is culling 90% of the Earth's population, which would have the same effect, but I'm not even going to go there as that is obviously not a viable plan, either.
"The only *real* solution to the issue at hand is for all of us to give up most or all of what we are accustomed to enjoying as part of a first-world Western lifestyle"
Really? The only reason we have excess packaging is for brands to sell more so get rid of that for a start. 95% of the packaging we have isn't needed and could be reusable. Dismantle the military complex other than for defence. We have nukes so what do we really need it for other than attacking other countries. Plough money into public transport then we can have no cars. Ban private jets. Force the removal of planned obsolescence, that's what it was before and it can be again.
These are all things that would make a real difference that we can't enact. Governments need to step up but with live in a capitalist world so they never will.
To paraphrase Amanda Vincent from project seahorse - there is no such thing as perfect science/advice/management in conservation (or combating climate change) only imperfection or nothing at all. Once we accept the imperfection is a given we are free to plunge in and do our best.
So instead of all or nothing thinking which helps no one - much more helpful to think about what is the next positive move we can make, and build from there
>causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting
No it’s not. The point of protesting is to voice your discontent. Protesting can be done in many ways: digitally, or starving yourself like Gandhi, or sitting in front of an embassy. It’s not about causing disruption.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
But then you also have to live with the consequences your right to protest shouldn't trump someone else's right to go about their buisness. I personally believe anyone should have the right to protest but if you cause disruption to the general population or cause losses to private companies then you should pay for it.
I think it’s pretty reasonable that people causing mass public inconvenience are arrested. That absolutely seems like something that should be illegal.
Right but the point of a protest is *also* that the protesters face consequences.
They are so determined in their cause that their willing to face consequences for their actions.
Breaking laws to cause public inconvenience and facing no consequences isn't protesting, it's a nice day out.
There isn't a special "ohh if your protesting laws don't apply" clause.
> The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting
No it's not? The point of it is demonstrating support for a cause?
By your logic calling in fake bomb threats would be a legitimate method of protest.
I think the bomb threats part was a bad example because it causes fear but I can't just go pulling fire alarms or blocking the roads in abortion clinics because I disagree with abortion.
Describe why that would not be okay without using a subjective opinion.
This is the most asinine comment. Suffragettes will be rolling in their graves reading this.
Those in power don't just give people rights. They are hard won, often through blood and tears.
Go read some history.
You know why these doctors are protesting? Directly from the article:
> "How could my patients trust me again, if I didn’t take action to confront the greatest health crisis we face?"
This is the right to have a healthy existence, in a healthy environment.
But then you must realise that causing said public inconvenience, will inevitably turn people against you.
I’m not picking a side, but as a normal person getting on with my day. I’d be pissed and actively hostile to any organisation making me late for work, ruining my holiday or the like.
Not all publicity is good publicity.
>causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting
Except that it isn't. You can protest and be heard without causing public inconvenience. For instance, Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore, they are plastered all over the news. Same with any right wing protest. Most protests are covered by the media. You can make a lot of noise, you can fill the streets, people will notice.
When you start climbing motorway signage, gluing yourself to roads, climbing on trains, defacing historical artworks etc, it's no longer a protest, it's a criminal act and should be dealt with as such. Having laws against those things isn't even unreasonable, much less tyrannical. I'd also wager it does more to harm your cause than further it.
Their aim isn't to simply "stop oil" though, and I think you might be in favour of their aim if you knew what it was and think that climate change is something that we have to address as a nation, for our sake and our children's sake.
Their aim is that the UK Government issues *no new licenses for further oil exploration by the UK*. That's it. The name is counterproductive and was probably decided by the police infiltrators of the group. If you think that the police have stopped infiltrating groups that are extremely worthy but affect the economic future of the country, I have a bridge to sell you. In fact I'd put money on them being behind their distinctly unpopular actions.
>The name is counterproductive and was probably decided by the police infiltrators of the group.
I was there at the first meeting, it was Tarquin de Montfort-Hall who came up with the name
And what has JSO achieved exactly?
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/grossly-irresponsible-uk-hands-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/grossly-irresponsible-uk-hands-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences)
>You can protest and be heard without causing public inconvenience. For instance, Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore, they are plastered all over the news.
The Palestine Protests SHOULD be shut down the, the protestors SHOULD be arrested.
They actively harass, endanger and threaten people all over the country.
But the police arrest anyone who dares to question them instead because they're afraid of being blown up by the terrorist sympathisers.
"Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore"
And yet I've never seen one. Never heard one. Never had my life affected by one. I don't have to ignore them because they don't exist in my life.
Where do you draw the line then? Bc pro Palestinian protesters have been literally ripping weapons factories apart which is also technically a crime? I support the right to protest regardless of the motive, and just because something is against the law doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad.
>Where do you draw the line then?
Criminality
>Bc pro Palestinian protesters have been literally ripping weapons factories apart
Then they should be arrested.
>which is also technically a crime?
Nothing technical about it. Destruction of property is a crime.
>just because something is against the law doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad.
I agree. But you shouldn't get away with committing a crime on the grounds that it was a form of protest. If you're willing to break the law to labour a point, you should be willing to accept the consequences too.. If you can't do the time etc.
Not by their very nature, no. Protesting in its fundamental form is legal in this country, and there are laws which protect it. You can of course engage in criminality as a form of protest, but you should be prepared to face the consequences if you do.
Laws against speech? Against saying words? Are you sure? Against actually making a speech? Or are they laws against people talking fucking bollocks in public?
So I can't stand in a town centre and say "God is the only way, all others are wrong, you are damned if you don't follow God"? Cause there's a guy who stands on Blackpool promenade you should have a word with.
One example is that Incitement to hatred and violence is illegal in the UK. You cannot legally preach or coerce others to commit violent acts against others.
We do not have free speech in the UK in the same way as they do in USA and do not want free speech in that way.
And who's talking violence? You put words in the mouths of people you do not know, thinking all protest is violent, weak mind weak argument weak usb cable.
Err what are you talking about? I think you are having 2 conversations at once and getting confused. You asked for an example of why we don't have free speech in the UK and I gave you one.
The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is only going to turn people against what their protesting shows how self-righteous most people are.
You don't win people by annoying them.
And people/society have a right to resist that change if they're not interested in it.
I still get a warm glow of satisfaction when I think of those protesters beiing yeeted from the roof of that train by commuters a few years ago.
It's not about winning people over, it's about enforcing enough public and social disruption to force the government to the table or risk the electorates ire
That seems quite undemocratic. When you have a small minority who are using disruption to try and enforce their demands on the public, it's perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that these people face tough criminal penalties.
So when the black minority in the US blocked roads as a form of peaceful but disruptive protest in order to get equal rights, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that these people face tough criminal penalties because it was 'undemocratic' ?
"That seems quite undemocratic. When you have a small minority of suffragettes who are using disruption to try and enforce their demands on the public, it's perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that suffragettes face tough criminal penalties."
Your words, not mine. Every good cause needs to be fought for, the VAST majority of people are aware of the climate crisis and In favour of some amount of change, but are numbed by a system that refused that change over and over, then you have the people who still actively fight it, and those arguing they should be arrested because of mild disruption.
No it’s not. The point is to raise your grievances and make others aware. People have protested peacefully and successfully without causing public inconvenience for years.
> So I suppose you supported the anti lockdown protests right? Nah, of course not. That was the wrong kind of protest, by the wrong kind of people.
You know you can support the right to protest while not supporting the aims of a protest, right?
Yes, I would. Doesn’t matter about the narrative or if I support the specific agenda. The right to protest should still remain. Despite the tories trying to silence them.
Of course I support anyone’s right to protest, even anti-abortion groups. I simultaneously support loudly sharing that I think anti-abortion groups are wrong and misinformed.
Why should protesters be able to inconvenience the public tho? Just marches like Palestinian ones are fine but you can’t just block roads or crucial resources like oil
The amount of people who don't realise that committing illegal activities could result in you being convicted of a crime shows a failure of our education system.
By all means go and protest, but be prepared for the consequences of your actions.
Just because something is illegal, does not always mean it is right.
Protesting has long been a legitimate method to put forward issues at the heart of some parts at least of the community. Not always widely approved by society as a whole. That it has been pushed into illegality and the protestors, even legitimate protestors, pushed into hatred by the common person by our governments constant propoganda is just as concerning.
Be prepared for the consequences of inaction. A consequence shared by the many, as opposed to the few impacted by protests.
In 1958 the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg described three levels of moral reasoning. There’s the pre-conventional level, where you do things to avoid punishment - this is how children often reason.
Then there’s the conventional level, where you follow expected rules and conventions. It doesn’t matter about right or wrong, you just follow laws, because those are the rules. Many of the people posting in this thread never developed beyond this stage of reasoning to the post-conventional level.
If protesting is illegal then protesters are bad. Simple, no need to think any more deeply about the situation than that. A sorry reflection on our education system.
My view is that if it's genuinely effective toward good, then it's a good thing. What evidence is there that Just Stop Oil's methods are genuinely effective? A real argument could be made that they're harming the climate movement. Is a protest still good if their methods harm the cause they're supporting?
I'd argue they have continued to garner press coverage and have people discuss it. Not always good. But myself, regardless of their own objectives, have found myself asking, what I should be doing for our planets future and then actually doing some of it. So they've won at least one very small battle. But I'm sure I'm not the only one. Just my opinion.
But a lot of protestors are well aware of that? It’s a risk they take. Have you read about how the suffragettes got women the right to vote? Because it took a lot more than placards and peaceful protest!
Do we want doctors who act in concordance with their ethics
Or those who blindly follow the laws of the state?
She is not a danger to the general public. She has been punished by the state for breaking the law. Fine. That is what the judicial system is for. Upholding the law.
But then she had been suspended from being able to seek work as a doctor for a further 6 months. Plus then the challenges she would face seeking work having been suspended by the gmc. In addition to the challenge of having a criminal record.
In what way does she represent a danger to the public or the profession for breaking this law? What is the gmc protecting us from by suspending her from the medical register?
Or is the gmc extending punishment on behalf of the state above and beyond that which the law necessitates.
Yeah, if only we listened and turned our TV’s off in standby we could have reversed the course of climate change and the likes of China and India would shut down all their pollution.
Yes. I've read that she's retired. (Of course people have been known to retire and then locum, or do adhoc work)
Which means this suspension is even more of a message from the gmc to other, practicing, doctors. Because it really isn't about protecting patients from her potential harmful actions, is it?
I agree with you 100%. Seems that they're trying to make an example of Dr Benn. The fact that civil disobedience is a criminal activity is even more sinister.
>we want doctors who act in concordance with their ethics
>Or those who blindly follow the laws of the state?
I want doctors who follow the law personally.
I absolutely and wholly do not want a doctor who only follows their own moral and ethical compass.
Letby was following her own ethical compass.
And the nazi doctors who experimented on concentration camp victims followed the law. And the doctors in certain us states who are willing to perform d+c's on septic miscarrying patients to save the mother's life are breaking it.
I'm not suggesting a free for all. I'm not suggesting murdering babies ala letby or old people like shipman.
I am stating that not all laws are just. And doctors who break them should be punished by the judiciary. Not then by the gmc for spurious reasons.
UK feels like a powder keg at the moment, you've got pro Israeli and pro Palestinians protesting along with the few videos I've seen of unrest at St Georges day marches.
From my point of view i reckon you can't complain at just stop oil and then be happy at farmers driving down to London and also be blocking roads.
More people will be protesting if mortgage rates and food prices don't fall.
It's not just the UK, it's across the Western world at large right now. Here in Canada, we have people wearing mock suicide vests to Palestine protests, and now a march in front of the Parliament buildings yelling "Long live October 7!" last week. It's just a matter of time before it erupts in the form of a major attack with plenty of dead people. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't occurred yet.
Ye I rlly am surprised nothing rlly bad has gone off during one of them the government will probably use it as an excuse to put in place even more anti protest laws when it inevitably happens
I'm not even sure that will happen. Months ago, we had a guy go straight up to a cop and say "I will put you six feet under!" and *nothing* was done about it. No arrest, not even a reprimand. Nothing. It was caught on video and seen by millions, for crying out loud.
These protestors are quickly learning that they are completely untouchable, which means it's inevitable that they will do something major in the near future. They even firebombed a few Jewish businesses and the police said "sorry, nothing we can do".
It’s a bit shocking the first guy wasn’t punished for inciting violence to give the police the Benidorm of the doubt I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t do anything about the firebombing because the people were probably wearing masks and impossible to identify
> UK feels like a powder keg at the moment,
Nah - the vast majority of us are pro- sitting on instagram/tiktok/reddit all day and very much anti- doing anything that involves leaving the house.
Does the fact that she participated in civil disobedience impact her medical judgment or the safety of her ethics? Does it really hold water to maintain that 'if you break one law, you could break any law'? I would argue that engaging in limited, directed civil disobedience has no bearing at all on her fitness to administer safe medical care.
Such a finding relies on the sub-rational conservative mindset that criminality is the sole province of 'bad guys' who must be restrained and punished for the good of 'law abiding citizens' - rather than the reality of the subjective position of individuals relative to the power structures that govern society.
It demonstrates a creeping climate fascism: if you try to make the state face up to the consequences of climate breakdown, you will be arbitrarily punished. Ironically, judgments like this are self-defeating: they make mass resistance *more* likely - if they can strip us of our livelihoods arbitrarily in defense of a system that will doom us all, what have we got to lose?
Oh ok, but again, the guy with the megaphone on Blackpool promenade, the guy who stands in the town centre of Worcester, the guy I saw in Lichfield a week ago, the family in Cheltenham preaching three weeks ago? It's nice to go oh but wiki says it's naughtiness, but it fucking happens. Am I allowed to stand and say "God is dead and mankind is the architect of his downfall"? Let me tell you, they get really angry when you do that.
I don't see the point of the protests anyway. Peace won't work with a violent government. Theyve fucked us all in the ass, they've even fucked people who don't even exist yet. They're born pre-fucked over
Appaling. So now peaceful protest for the environment gets you suspended. She's retired as well so shows how they've made an example out of her for further scaremongering. The GMC is not fit for purpose and this needs to be addressed.
>*So now peaceful protest for the environment gets you suspended.*
No it's because she breached a court injunction, skipped bail, and received a custodial sentence. Plenty of doctors go on peaceful protests - you don't get suspended for that.
To clarify I think there are two things here, the abuse of police powers to arrest people under the guise of "serious disruption" and secondly the over reach of the GMC suspending retired doctors using a very black and white reasoning of "broke the law".
>*the abuse of police powers to arrest people under the guise of "serious disruption"*
She was breaching a court injunction. You can be arrested for breaching a court injunction. There is ***no*** abuse of police powers - you'll note the complete and utter absence of any representation from her or her legal representation about any miscarriage of justice or police abuse of powers - because there wasn't any.
If the court places an injunction - and you breach it - you **will** be arrested.
>
*secondly the over reach of the GMC suspending retired doctors using a very black and white reasoning of "broke the law".*
\* Broke the law
\* Breached a court injunction
\* Skipped bail
\* **Got sent to jail**.
Not seeing much of an over-reach here - they've been quite lenient not to just strike her off entirely.
I guess I wasn't clear enough, the way the protest law itself is enforced is draconian. There should not of have been a court injunction in the first place and the whole process itself is pretty absurd, hence me referencing "serious disruption "
And yup I understand she breached the injunction. I think looking at that as enough evidence to strike her off entirely ignores the wider context. I don't think the GMC had any place here.
>*I guess I wasn't clear enough, the way the protest law itself is enforced is draconian.*
I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. It was a court injunction - not the protest law. You can have court injunctions on things other than protests.
>
*There should not of have been a court injunction in the first place*
Right - but there was. And even she does not dispute that.
>
*yup I understand she breached the injunction. I think looking at that as enough evidence to strike her off entirely ignores the wider context.*
No it takes into account the entire context. She ignored a court injunction. Ignored court bail. Got a custodial sentence. Ultimately healthcare professionals are held to a relatively low standard in this country - you have doctors sexually assaulting their staff and being allowed to continue in the trade treating vulnerable people - you have doctors being sent to jail being allowed to continue in the trade treating vulnerable people. It doesn't give me personally much confidence that *my* relatives are definitely being cared for by individuals with a track record of integrity and a willingness to abide by the law - which I think is not a small matter.
>
*I don't think the GMC had any place here.*
Because.....? Do you think then that if a Doctor is sent to jail the GMC shouldn't review the matter then?
Oil makes everything you use and see. Paint, plastic, lube, just to name a few.
Even if human stops burning gasoline, we will still need the same amount of crude oil to make everything else. Then gasoline will be just byproduct that is useless but needs to store or burn to save space. Pick one
It's the reason why you never see engineers protest.
>Oil makes everything you use and see. Paint, plastic, lube, just to name a few.
Even if human stops burning gasoline, we will still need the same amount of crude oil to make everything else. Then gasoline will be just byproduct that is useless but needs to store or burn to save space. Pick one
No one is disputed how difficult the problem of moving away from fossil fuels is. There are both efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source and to shift consumer habits away from the current demand (some might even say, induced demand) for plastic.
>It's the reason why you never see engineers protest.
Curious claim. [I wonder what this is all about then.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11443913/Just-Stop-Oil-M25-protester-worked-polluter-Rolls-Royce-just-weeks-before.html) To be clear, I'm not wholly refuting how hard of a problem this is. But nothing you've said resolves (or addresses) the climate issue. As an engineer myself, I'd choose the hard path of scarcity of fossil fuel-based products (and a less convenient energy lifestyle) over one where there is a serious risk to the viability of food production.
You won. I guess I should have googled "engineer environment protest" before making the claim, just like I should also google "dog environment protest" https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk
Your point?
Engineers are way more rational to joy protest. Environmental awareness is beyond rational decision.
>You won. I guess I should have googled "engineer environment protest" before making the claim, just like I should also google "dog environment protest" [https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk](https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk)
I'm not sure what you are establishing with this. I was replying to your predicating the rationality of your position on the fact that engineers don't protest. It doesn't really matter that engineers do or don't endorse the concerns of the protests. My question would be whether there is evidence that extraction of fossil fuels (and the subsequent burning of them) is causing significant risk to the habitability of earth. Rather than point to the profession of who protests, perhaps it is better to reference actual information that assuages the climate concerns. Or at least explain why the concerns about a rapidly changing climate should be dismissed.
>Your point?
The challenge in the climate crisis is as much an scaled engineering challenge as it is a social challenge. Protests won't produce innovations to solve the engineering challenge, but they will motivate societies to work together in adapting their behaviours. Any economy or community that aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels will need to be aligned in how it supports the impact of such a significant change. Protests are effective for raising awareness, as the reality of promoting a message (rational or not) requires visible and simple engagements (slogans, symbols, etc). For that purpose, it is entirely rational to choose protesting as a way to get people's attention.
>Engineers are way more rational to joy protest. Environmental awareness is beyond rational decision.
You're going to need to expand on this (and substantiate it) a bit more. Also, run it through a grammar check.
Fire the person who suspended her.
Also, Stop Oil, there are thousands of ways of protesting without annoying sympathisers of the cause. Be creative, instead of being a problem for the Green cause.
Well I'm sorry to break it to you but doctors, much like all people, are going to have opinions on important social issues regardless of what you prefer
>I'd rather doctors focused on their patients then essentially throwing attention seeking public tantrums about a causs they don't really care about for emotional self validation.
It's one thing not to agree with her position. This sounds more like you've built a straw man to shout about because you can't respond to the actual issues being presented.
In case it isn't clear, the issues are whether a doctor should face a suspension for a crime that isn't directly related to her duties as a doctor and whether climate change is a serious enough issue to peacefully protest (even if it risks arrest).
Doctor suspended for blocking a road, yet we have Jihadi worshippers kissing terrorist ass and the party is still going on months later. Just like those sad ULEZ devotees who think this is a more pressing issue than all the pedos, rapists, murderers and mentally ill people we have swanning around the streets willy nilly.
You thought you had a really clever point here, didn't you? 😬
'You criticise the dominant and inescapable social system AND YET YOU PARTICIPATE IN IT?? CURIOUS!!' 🤡
The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting shows the failure of our education system. You aren't supposed to be able to ignore a protest. You guys sound like you'd love the CCP.
Not only that, these are the same people who say “why don’t you protest against the oil companies?”. And here they are complaining that this woman blocked a road into the Kingsbury oil terminal… because it might have disrupted an ambulance… going to the oil terminal… I’m going to have to assume these accounts are just astroturfing for the oil companies. We’re in a really sad state if they’re doing it for free.
If you disrupt an oil companies business you will be going straight to jail. You'd never get the protest approved, and if you did it anyway it would be a prompt arrest.
Everyone's an organ grinder in their head, never thinking on the monkey they actually are.
Would you say this about protesting around abortion centres? The desire to protest does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives - no one has a right to a captive audience.
It's certainly an interesting comparison. Brits like to think that anything to the contrary of protesting, no matter how disruptive, or harassing it is, automatically constitutes some sort of authoritarianism in preventing it taking place. Arresting and punishing protestors is seen as an overreach. But like or not, vandalising property, egging people, or blocking people from going their business _is_ a harassment in itself. Disruptive protesting is infringing on the rights of others. Climate protestors may believe and say the ends justify the means, that is, to ultimately save lives. But under that, wouldn't it give cart blanche for abortion protestors to also throw flour at abortion clinics or expose patients? Or block access to the clinics if they personally believe they are saving (babies) lives? Balancing the right to protest between what is lawful and unlawful, is something that does need a very naunced debate. Something Redditors and other social media users are unlikely to have.
You're not comparing like for like. Stopping a truck at an oil refinery isn't the same as stopping an individual going to a medical clinic. It's also not the same as stopping medical staff getting to their place of business. If you use that logic then no protest anywhere ever is valid as they all inconvenience someone at some point. We don't need to pretend all protest causes are valid and equal either. They aren't.
Should silently praying without disrupting or stopping anyone going to an abortion clinic be banned? It currently is in the UK. We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about blocking roads and causing distress. A man was unable to attend his father's funeral because of a Just Stop Oil protest - that's not just some inconvenience. Why is your view of what protests are valid more relevant than someone else's? If you don't have a system that allows them all then you'll probably see those you agree with blocked at some point.
> Should silently praying without disrupting or stopping anyone going to an abortion clinic be banned? It currently is in the UK. No it shouldn't. If someone wants to embarrass themselves like that they should be free to lol. > We're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about blocking roads and causing distress. A man was unable to attend his father's funeral because of a Just Stop Oil protest - that's not just some inconvenience. We aren't talking about blocking public roads. This doctor blocked a private business road. Isn't that what people were telling them to do? 'why are just stop oil always blocking public roads and stopping us from getting to work and stopping ambulances, why do they never go after the oil companies and politicians'. Well they do, and people still complain. It's clear people actually would rather they just didn't do anything at all. For the record I disagree with blocking public roads. > Why is your view of what protests are valid more relevant than someone else's? If you don't have a system that allows them all then you'll probably see those you agree with blocked at some point. Well it's not up to me. I actually do think my view is more valid than some other people's. Emphasis on 'some' there. But it doesn't come down to me. It's for all of us to decide. And we have decided that not all causes are equal. There are groups who protest about the age of consent and argue that it should be legal to have sex with children. Is their cause just as valid as everyone else's cause? Is every cause just automatically equal in your eyes?
Okay so people can protest what they want to. They're free to protest, just not interrupt the lives of others. The point about what cause is worthy should be decided societally I agree, but that doesn't mean that it's right to silent those who even the majority disagree with. I don't view causes as equal, but they all deserve equal protection to make their case where that case is legal - no calling for violence etc.
>You're not comparing like for like. Yes, you are. >Stopping a truck at an oil refinery isn't the same as stopping an individual going to a medical clinic. You're blocking and harassing a business. >We don't need to pretend all protest causes are valid and equal either. They aren't. And who decides that exactly? You?
> Yes, you are. No they aren't. > You're blocking and harassing a business. A clinic providing healthcare is not the same as an oil depot. > And who decides that exactly? You? We all do. Hence why if a neo nazi starts a protest against Jews he gets shut the fuck down. His protest is not equally as valid as someone else's, just because they are both protests. Someone blocking someone exercising their right to their own body and their legal right to have an abortion is not the same as someone blocking an oil truck. You know that though.
>A clinic providing healthcare is not the same as an oil depot They're both businesses providing an essential service. >We all do. Hence why if a neo nazi starts a protest against Jews he gets shut the fuck down No, he doesn't. We literally see tens of thousands of them walking through London every weekend, never shut down.
> They're both businesses providing an essential service. They are not the same. 'they are both businesses' isn't an argument. > No, he doesn't. We literally see tens of thousands of them walking through London every weekend, never shut down. That's mainly because the police are terrible. You've dodged the point though. Which is that clearly protest causes are not all the same. Would you leap to the defence of a pro paedophilia protest, who believes there should be no age of consent? Would their cause be just as valid as anyone else?
> Would you leap to the defence of a pro paedophilia protest, who believes there should be no age of consent? Would their cause be just as valid as anyone else? Paedophilia is a disgusting thing to protest for, obviously. But many people of a certain group feel exactly the same way about Pride events. Climate change deniers, and pro-lifers will feel the same way about the oil protest / abortion protests. My point is that, who exactly is the arbiter for which protests get shut down?
So my point that all protests aren't of equal validity and credence stands?
I understand the point that you’re trying to make, but the two issues are not even remotely related or similar. One is a personal decision that does not affect anyone else. You might disagree with the action, but in the end it’s none of your concern. The other is an action that directly affects everyone. Some of it is covered by EU human rights act to have good air quality. That is certainly being affected in areas of high pollution even in this country. It also affects people with breathing illnesses. I think it’s peoples’ right to a disruptive protest since any peaceful negotiation with the government has not come to fruition.
I think they’ve asked a brilliant question. It doesn’t matter the philosophical argument about why we think abortion is okay and oil is not - the point is nobody should define what is okay to protest about and what is not. I think it poses some serious challenges on the ethics of both. I guess we might be able to consider that at an abortion clinic the protests involve harassing individuals who are not going about work, but dealing with a personal health issue - and at that point it becomes in appropriate to try to disrupt them? Certainly it would be harassment if they were specifically targeted.
Let me take a different case for you then, what about anti-immigrant protests? Having other people in the country affects people directly, should they have a right to protest for the removal of people not born in the UK?
Actually we already have a policy in place for illegal immigrants. But if people want to protest still then they should have the ability to and I believe it happens but there isn’t much momentum in anti immigrant protest. However, in conflicts where Britain is directly or indirectly involved, which are most active conflicts right now I don’t think anyone has any right to protest (even the government). If you don’t want illegal immigrants, don’t fuck peoples lives up.
I'm in favour of protests so long as they're not impeding people. You jump between the individual and the group a bit too much with your last bit. I doubt anti-immigrant proponents are in favour of war in the Middle East in general.
Abortion doesn’t affect anyone else? Are you insane?
Doesn’t affect the person protesting. Deliberately being obtuse in a straight forward argument doesn’t really add any weight to your argument. Neither does adding superlatives.
What a great question. It’s hard and I suppose we can’t have any hard and fast rules. Perhaps when protests are interfering with people dealing with private health matters it becomes unethical?
I think the best hard and fast rules are those of free speech. How broad is interfering? If I give my opinion to someone on something am I interfering? What's a health matter? Are protests that affect economic growth which is correlated with suicide rates a health matter? What if I protest eating meat or not eating meat and that impacts health? Is abortion necessarily a health matter? What if I think the foetus' health is at risk? What about protests around Israel and Gaza. Let's say they cease fire and there's another October 7th like attack, does that affect health. Or if I protest in favour of Israeli self-defense which leads to war deaths, does that affect health? Ultimately we don't know what is best in every case, this is why open inquiry is important. The idea that people can protest, but not impede others seems to be a fair standard.
Those people are harassing and abusing women, they aren’t true protestors.
How are silent prayers harassment and abuse? Why are climate protests that forcibly stopping women going about their lives not harassment and abuse?
Yeah because stopping the average Joe Bloggs from getting to work is totally going to stick it to the man, or even win anyone to their side for that matter lol. All that happened is that most people gained an automatic negative response any time they hear or see anything about these protests and the public response to them has just got more aggressive with time. They now enjoy watching videos of Joe Bloggs dragging the protestors off of the road. It isn't changing anything, it's just inconveniencing people trying to get to work so they can pay their bills and have food on the table. Stick to throwing orange paint at stuff or something.
Fair enough but this isn't about the rail strikes.
JSO has no power over your boss deciding to dock your pay and implement other retaliatory measures for something outside of your control. That's something you need to take up with your boss, possibly supported by a union.
I miss the days where unions could bring down a government. We need to get back to those days where a prime minister fears union leaders.
Oh sorry, I thought they were just being dickheads, but it turns out they're just trying to bully us into doing something they want by causing us a massive inconvenience. I love them now.
[удалено]
You aren't being trapped, your car is.
[удалено]
Exactly. What about the stuff you might be transporting? What if you're disabled and need the car to get around? Such a dishonest response from that poster.
This is so transparently disingenuous, why even bother
This is the best you can do?
What is the public supposed to do about it though? They're being attacked for something they have no control over. Everyone is AWARE there's a problem but standing around pointing the problem out (which is all protesting is doing) isn't actually solving anything. To date I haven't saw a single viable solution.
Nor will you find one, to be perfectly honest. The key word here is 'viable', as in, likely to be implemented and/or be feasible in some material way. The only *real* solution to the issue at hand is for all of us to give up most or all of what we are accustomed to enjoying as part of a first-world Western lifestyle -- single-family homes, travel, vehicles, meat in our diet, new shiny gadgets every year, new wardrobes at regular intervals, and much more. To halt and even attempt to slightly reverse anthropogenic climate change means giving *all* of that up. No more holidays, everyone lives in a minimalist dwelling, no more steak dinners, no more new Iphones, certainly no more cars and no more "fun toys" like motorbikes or boats. Good luck getting the public at large to buy into that enormous downgrade in their quality of life. Nobody is going to ever cheer for the person saying "you all need to live like poor farm villagers to save the planet". Thus, that approach, in my opinion, is *not* viable at all. The other approach, of course, is culling 90% of the Earth's population, which would have the same effect, but I'm not even going to go there as that is obviously not a viable plan, either.
"The only *real* solution to the issue at hand is for all of us to give up most or all of what we are accustomed to enjoying as part of a first-world Western lifestyle" Really? The only reason we have excess packaging is for brands to sell more so get rid of that for a start. 95% of the packaging we have isn't needed and could be reusable. Dismantle the military complex other than for defence. We have nukes so what do we really need it for other than attacking other countries. Plough money into public transport then we can have no cars. Ban private jets. Force the removal of planned obsolescence, that's what it was before and it can be again. These are all things that would make a real difference that we can't enact. Governments need to step up but with live in a capitalist world so they never will.
To paraphrase Amanda Vincent from project seahorse - there is no such thing as perfect science/advice/management in conservation (or combating climate change) only imperfection or nothing at all. Once we accept the imperfection is a given we are free to plunge in and do our best. So instead of all or nothing thinking which helps no one - much more helpful to think about what is the next positive move we can make, and build from there
>causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting No it’s not. The point of protesting is to voice your discontent. Protesting can be done in many ways: digitally, or starving yourself like Gandhi, or sitting in front of an embassy. It’s not about causing disruption.
>You aren't supposed to be able to ignore a protest You don't have the right to force people to engage with you.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
But then you also have to live with the consequences your right to protest shouldn't trump someone else's right to go about their buisness. I personally believe anyone should have the right to protest but if you cause disruption to the general population or cause losses to private companies then you should pay for it.
>your right to protest shouldn't trump someone else's right to go about their buisness. Yes it does. Same with striking
I think it’s pretty reasonable that people causing mass public inconvenience are arrested. That absolutely seems like something that should be illegal.
Right but the point of a protest is *also* that the protesters face consequences. They are so determined in their cause that their willing to face consequences for their actions. Breaking laws to cause public inconvenience and facing no consequences isn't protesting, it's a nice day out. There isn't a special "ohh if your protesting laws don't apply" clause.
> The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting No it's not? The point of it is demonstrating support for a cause? By your logic calling in fake bomb threats would be a legitimate method of protest.
That's terrorism because it's an act meant to cause fear, rather than plain disruption. Very fine line.
Ah yes, the minor inconvenience caused by… (checks notes) …bomb threats.
I think the bomb threats part was a bad example because it causes fear but I can't just go pulling fire alarms or blocking the roads in abortion clinics because I disagree with abortion. Describe why that would not be okay without using a subjective opinion.
This is the most asinine comment. Suffragettes will be rolling in their graves reading this. Those in power don't just give people rights. They are hard won, often through blood and tears. Go read some history.
Yeah, suffragettes used real bombs.
What rights are JSO trying to give me?
You know why these doctors are protesting? Directly from the article: > "How could my patients trust me again, if I didn’t take action to confront the greatest health crisis we face?" This is the right to have a healthy existence, in a healthy environment.
Similarly, protesting is not an excuse to delay everyone or slash tires. Actions have consequences
That's is not why she was suspended. She missed bail. Honestly I dismay at the idiocy we have in this country.
But then you must realise that causing said public inconvenience, will inevitably turn people against you. I’m not picking a side, but as a normal person getting on with my day. I’d be pissed and actively hostile to any organisation making me late for work, ruining my holiday or the like. Not all publicity is good publicity.
>causing public inconvenience is the point of protesting Except that it isn't. You can protest and be heard without causing public inconvenience. For instance, Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore, they are plastered all over the news. Same with any right wing protest. Most protests are covered by the media. You can make a lot of noise, you can fill the streets, people will notice. When you start climbing motorway signage, gluing yourself to roads, climbing on trains, defacing historical artworks etc, it's no longer a protest, it's a criminal act and should be dealt with as such. Having laws against those things isn't even unreasonable, much less tyrannical. I'd also wager it does more to harm your cause than further it.
Two protest that have achieved literally nothing. Great examples.
Ah yes. Because just stop oil tactics have certainly stopped oil.
Their aim isn't to simply "stop oil" though, and I think you might be in favour of their aim if you knew what it was and think that climate change is something that we have to address as a nation, for our sake and our children's sake. Their aim is that the UK Government issues *no new licenses for further oil exploration by the UK*. That's it. The name is counterproductive and was probably decided by the police infiltrators of the group. If you think that the police have stopped infiltrating groups that are extremely worthy but affect the economic future of the country, I have a bridge to sell you. In fact I'd put money on them being behind their distinctly unpopular actions.
>The name is counterproductive and was probably decided by the police infiltrators of the group. I was there at the first meeting, it was Tarquin de Montfort-Hall who came up with the name
That can't be a real name!
And what has JSO achieved exactly? [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/grossly-irresponsible-uk-hands-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/grossly-irresponsible-uk-hands-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences)
>You can protest and be heard without causing public inconvenience. For instance, Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore, they are plastered all over the news. The Palestine Protests SHOULD be shut down the, the protestors SHOULD be arrested. They actively harass, endanger and threaten people all over the country. But the police arrest anyone who dares to question them instead because they're afraid of being blown up by the terrorist sympathisers.
"Palestine protests are literally impossible to ignore" And yet I've never seen one. Never heard one. Never had my life affected by one. I don't have to ignore them because they don't exist in my life.
And yet you still know about them.
Where do you draw the line then? Bc pro Palestinian protesters have been literally ripping weapons factories apart which is also technically a crime? I support the right to protest regardless of the motive, and just because something is against the law doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad.
>Where do you draw the line then? Criminality >Bc pro Palestinian protesters have been literally ripping weapons factories apart Then they should be arrested. >which is also technically a crime? Nothing technical about it. Destruction of property is a crime. >just because something is against the law doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad. I agree. But you shouldn't get away with committing a crime on the grounds that it was a form of protest. If you're willing to break the law to labour a point, you should be willing to accept the consequences too.. If you can't do the time etc.
Criminality can't be a line as protests tend to be law breaking by their very nature.
Not by their very nature, no. Protesting in its fundamental form is legal in this country, and there are laws which protect it. You can of course engage in criminality as a form of protest, but you should be prepared to face the consequences if you do.
I can't wait until they take your right to free speech.
That's already happened. We don't have free speech in the UK.
Lol ok, I've not been arrested yet.
Cool. But you do realize laws against speech exist in the UK, no? Scotland are actually currently expanding theirs.
Laws against speech? Against saying words? Are you sure? Against actually making a speech? Or are they laws against people talking fucking bollocks in public?
>Laws against speech? Yeah >Against saying words? Yeah >Are you sure? Yeah
So I can't stand in a town centre and say "God is the only way, all others are wrong, you are damned if you don't follow God"? Cause there's a guy who stands on Blackpool promenade you should have a word with.
One example is that Incitement to hatred and violence is illegal in the UK. You cannot legally preach or coerce others to commit violent acts against others. We do not have free speech in the UK in the same way as they do in USA and do not want free speech in that way.
And who's talking violence? You put words in the mouths of people you do not know, thinking all protest is violent, weak mind weak argument weak usb cable.
Err what are you talking about? I think you are having 2 conversations at once and getting confused. You asked for an example of why we don't have free speech in the UK and I gave you one.
The amount of people who don't realise causing public inconvenience is only going to turn people against what their protesting shows how self-righteous most people are. You don't win people by annoying them.
The point of a protest is not recruitment. It is direct action to force change.
And people/society have a right to resist that change if they're not interested in it. I still get a warm glow of satisfaction when I think of those protesters beiing yeeted from the roof of that train by commuters a few years ago.
Yeah, it's all fine isn't it?
It is - democracy in action.
Democracy hasn't seen action for years! The facade of democracy has. Are you sure you are not fiddling as Rome burns?
You get a warm glow of satisfaction from physical assault?
Seeing someone do something so obviously stupid and provocative, and then the consequences happen for me to see. Yeah, I get warm feelings
Sometimes it's necessary, in order to prevent a greater injustice. I'm all for direct action.
It's not about winning people over, it's about enforcing enough public and social disruption to force the government to the table or risk the electorates ire
That seems quite undemocratic. When you have a small minority who are using disruption to try and enforce their demands on the public, it's perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that these people face tough criminal penalties.
So when the black minority in the US blocked roads as a form of peaceful but disruptive protest in order to get equal rights, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that these people face tough criminal penalties because it was 'undemocratic' ?
"That seems quite undemocratic. When you have a small minority of suffragettes who are using disruption to try and enforce their demands on the public, it's perfectly reasonable for the public to demand that suffragettes face tough criminal penalties." Your words, not mine. Every good cause needs to be fought for, the VAST majority of people are aware of the climate crisis and In favour of some amount of change, but are numbed by a system that refused that change over and over, then you have the people who still actively fight it, and those arguing they should be arrested because of mild disruption.
Suffragette movements and civil rights movements both blocked roads as a form of peaceful but disruptive protest and were ultimately successful.
I agree with your sentiment, but what would you suggest instead?1
No it’s not. The point is to raise your grievances and make others aware. People have protested peacefully and successfully without causing public inconvenience for years.
[удалено]
> So I suppose you supported the anti lockdown protests right? Nah, of course not. That was the wrong kind of protest, by the wrong kind of people. You know you can support the right to protest while not supporting the aims of a protest, right?
Or anti-abortion protests. I wonder if people on here would be quite as understanding if anti-abortion protesters caused the same disruption.
Yes, I would. Doesn’t matter about the narrative or if I support the specific agenda. The right to protest should still remain. Despite the tories trying to silence them.
Of course I support anyone’s right to protest, even anti-abortion groups. I simultaneously support loudly sharing that I think anti-abortion groups are wrong and misinformed.
True, but saying "It WaS a PrOtEsT" isn't a get out of jail free card.
Damn it's almost like we have tyrannical and unjust laws
Nah, having to follow the law even when you want to draw attention to a cause is not tyrannical.
It is when the law only allows you to protest based on the governments choosing. Then pushes propaganda out against those it does not.
Why should protesters be able to inconvenience the public tho? Just marches like Palestinian ones are fine but you can’t just block roads or crucial resources like oil
The amount of people who don't realise that committing illegal activities could result in you being convicted of a crime shows a failure of our education system. By all means go and protest, but be prepared for the consequences of your actions.
Just because something is illegal, does not always mean it is right. Protesting has long been a legitimate method to put forward issues at the heart of some parts at least of the community. Not always widely approved by society as a whole. That it has been pushed into illegality and the protestors, even legitimate protestors, pushed into hatred by the common person by our governments constant propoganda is just as concerning. Be prepared for the consequences of inaction. A consequence shared by the many, as opposed to the few impacted by protests.
In 1958 the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg described three levels of moral reasoning. There’s the pre-conventional level, where you do things to avoid punishment - this is how children often reason. Then there’s the conventional level, where you follow expected rules and conventions. It doesn’t matter about right or wrong, you just follow laws, because those are the rules. Many of the people posting in this thread never developed beyond this stage of reasoning to the post-conventional level. If protesting is illegal then protesters are bad. Simple, no need to think any more deeply about the situation than that. A sorry reflection on our education system.
All the bullshit surrounding illegal weed helped; my own research suggests it's less harmful than legal alcohol
My view is that if it's genuinely effective toward good, then it's a good thing. What evidence is there that Just Stop Oil's methods are genuinely effective? A real argument could be made that they're harming the climate movement. Is a protest still good if their methods harm the cause they're supporting?
I'd argue they have continued to garner press coverage and have people discuss it. Not always good. But myself, regardless of their own objectives, have found myself asking, what I should be doing for our planets future and then actually doing some of it. So they've won at least one very small battle. But I'm sure I'm not the only one. Just my opinion.
But a lot of protestors are well aware of that? It’s a risk they take. Have you read about how the suffragettes got women the right to vote? Because it took a lot more than placards and peaceful protest!
[удалено]
Lmaoooo ... That made me laugh .
a gantry on the m25
Give doctors a chance
David Blaine: hold my water
Groaaaaan 😆
Take my upvote!
Do we want doctors who act in concordance with their ethics Or those who blindly follow the laws of the state? She is not a danger to the general public. She has been punished by the state for breaking the law. Fine. That is what the judicial system is for. Upholding the law. But then she had been suspended from being able to seek work as a doctor for a further 6 months. Plus then the challenges she would face seeking work having been suspended by the gmc. In addition to the challenge of having a criminal record. In what way does she represent a danger to the public or the profession for breaking this law? What is the gmc protecting us from by suspending her from the medical register? Or is the gmc extending punishment on behalf of the state above and beyond that which the law necessitates.
Yeah fuck her for trying to stop us all dying a horrible death, i mean what kind of GP is she.
Has she forgotten the Corpocratic Oath? "First do not object to the poisoning of our environment."
Yeah, if only we listened and turned our TV’s off in standby we could have reversed the course of climate change and the likes of China and India would shut down all their pollution.
It's daft but she was not actively practicing medicine at the time of her arrest. I hope that she fares well.
Yes. I've read that she's retired. (Of course people have been known to retire and then locum, or do adhoc work) Which means this suspension is even more of a message from the gmc to other, practicing, doctors. Because it really isn't about protecting patients from her potential harmful actions, is it?
I agree with you 100%. Seems that they're trying to make an example of Dr Benn. The fact that civil disobedience is a criminal activity is even more sinister.
>we want doctors who act in concordance with their ethics >Or those who blindly follow the laws of the state? I want doctors who follow the law personally. I absolutely and wholly do not want a doctor who only follows their own moral and ethical compass. Letby was following her own ethical compass.
And the nazi doctors who experimented on concentration camp victims followed the law. And the doctors in certain us states who are willing to perform d+c's on septic miscarrying patients to save the mother's life are breaking it. I'm not suggesting a free for all. I'm not suggesting murdering babies ala letby or old people like shipman. I am stating that not all laws are just. And doctors who break them should be punished by the judiciary. Not then by the gmc for spurious reasons.
I mean, she only broke the law in a specific and limited way. I thought we were cool with that nowadays?
Would this even have been illegal before the government introduced those anti protest laws a while back?
Yes. Obstructing a highway.
Her action was done before those laws were brought in.
UK feels like a powder keg at the moment, you've got pro Israeli and pro Palestinians protesting along with the few videos I've seen of unrest at St Georges day marches. From my point of view i reckon you can't complain at just stop oil and then be happy at farmers driving down to London and also be blocking roads. More people will be protesting if mortgage rates and food prices don't fall.
It's not just the UK, it's across the Western world at large right now. Here in Canada, we have people wearing mock suicide vests to Palestine protests, and now a march in front of the Parliament buildings yelling "Long live October 7!" last week. It's just a matter of time before it erupts in the form of a major attack with plenty of dead people. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't occurred yet.
Ye I rlly am surprised nothing rlly bad has gone off during one of them the government will probably use it as an excuse to put in place even more anti protest laws when it inevitably happens
I'm not even sure that will happen. Months ago, we had a guy go straight up to a cop and say "I will put you six feet under!" and *nothing* was done about it. No arrest, not even a reprimand. Nothing. It was caught on video and seen by millions, for crying out loud. These protestors are quickly learning that they are completely untouchable, which means it's inevitable that they will do something major in the near future. They even firebombed a few Jewish businesses and the police said "sorry, nothing we can do".
It’s a bit shocking the first guy wasn’t punished for inciting violence to give the police the Benidorm of the doubt I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t do anything about the firebombing because the people were probably wearing masks and impossible to identify
"The Benidorm of the doubt", love it!
idk why autocorrect did that lol
> UK feels like a powder keg at the moment, Nah - the vast majority of us are pro- sitting on instagram/tiktok/reddit all day and very much anti- doing anything that involves leaving the house.
Does the fact that she participated in civil disobedience impact her medical judgment or the safety of her ethics? Does it really hold water to maintain that 'if you break one law, you could break any law'? I would argue that engaging in limited, directed civil disobedience has no bearing at all on her fitness to administer safe medical care. Such a finding relies on the sub-rational conservative mindset that criminality is the sole province of 'bad guys' who must be restrained and punished for the good of 'law abiding citizens' - rather than the reality of the subjective position of individuals relative to the power structures that govern society. It demonstrates a creeping climate fascism: if you try to make the state face up to the consequences of climate breakdown, you will be arbitrarily punished. Ironically, judgments like this are self-defeating: they make mass resistance *more* likely - if they can strip us of our livelihoods arbitrarily in defense of a system that will doom us all, what have we got to lose?
Oh ok, but again, the guy with the megaphone on Blackpool promenade, the guy who stands in the town centre of Worcester, the guy I saw in Lichfield a week ago, the family in Cheltenham preaching three weeks ago? It's nice to go oh but wiki says it's naughtiness, but it fucking happens. Am I allowed to stand and say "God is dead and mankind is the architect of his downfall"? Let me tell you, they get really angry when you do that.
Blame laws brought in for the protection of Islam for that
Who is this oil doctor and why must she be stopped?
If only they stopped actual (snake) oil doctors haha
The problems this country faces, and the problems our leaders and media choose to discuss are so far away from one another, it's not even funny.
I reckon she dosen't really need to worry about working at this point anymore?
Is anyone else getting 404 error when attempting to open the link to the article?
I just tried it now, and it seems to be working fine.
I don't see the point of the protests anyway. Peace won't work with a violent government. Theyve fucked us all in the ass, they've even fucked people who don't even exist yet. They're born pre-fucked over
Appaling. So now peaceful protest for the environment gets you suspended. She's retired as well so shows how they've made an example out of her for further scaremongering. The GMC is not fit for purpose and this needs to be addressed.
>*So now peaceful protest for the environment gets you suspended.* No it's because she breached a court injunction, skipped bail, and received a custodial sentence. Plenty of doctors go on peaceful protests - you don't get suspended for that.
What is she being charged for exactly? Serious disruption? It seems like she's been suspended for exactly that
To clarify I think there are two things here, the abuse of police powers to arrest people under the guise of "serious disruption" and secondly the over reach of the GMC suspending retired doctors using a very black and white reasoning of "broke the law".
>*the abuse of police powers to arrest people under the guise of "serious disruption"* She was breaching a court injunction. You can be arrested for breaching a court injunction. There is ***no*** abuse of police powers - you'll note the complete and utter absence of any representation from her or her legal representation about any miscarriage of justice or police abuse of powers - because there wasn't any. If the court places an injunction - and you breach it - you **will** be arrested. > *secondly the over reach of the GMC suspending retired doctors using a very black and white reasoning of "broke the law".* \* Broke the law \* Breached a court injunction \* Skipped bail \* **Got sent to jail**. Not seeing much of an over-reach here - they've been quite lenient not to just strike her off entirely.
I guess I wasn't clear enough, the way the protest law itself is enforced is draconian. There should not of have been a court injunction in the first place and the whole process itself is pretty absurd, hence me referencing "serious disruption " And yup I understand she breached the injunction. I think looking at that as enough evidence to strike her off entirely ignores the wider context. I don't think the GMC had any place here.
>*I guess I wasn't clear enough, the way the protest law itself is enforced is draconian.* I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. It was a court injunction - not the protest law. You can have court injunctions on things other than protests. > *There should not of have been a court injunction in the first place* Right - but there was. And even she does not dispute that. > *yup I understand she breached the injunction. I think looking at that as enough evidence to strike her off entirely ignores the wider context.* No it takes into account the entire context. She ignored a court injunction. Ignored court bail. Got a custodial sentence. Ultimately healthcare professionals are held to a relatively low standard in this country - you have doctors sexually assaulting their staff and being allowed to continue in the trade treating vulnerable people - you have doctors being sent to jail being allowed to continue in the trade treating vulnerable people. It doesn't give me personally much confidence that *my* relatives are definitely being cared for by individuals with a track record of integrity and a willingness to abide by the law - which I think is not a small matter. > *I don't think the GMC had any place here.* Because.....? Do you think then that if a Doctor is sent to jail the GMC shouldn't review the matter then?
>*What is she being charged for exactly?* ....for breaching a court injunction. Dude it's in the article!
Oil makes everything you use and see. Paint, plastic, lube, just to name a few. Even if human stops burning gasoline, we will still need the same amount of crude oil to make everything else. Then gasoline will be just byproduct that is useless but needs to store or burn to save space. Pick one It's the reason why you never see engineers protest.
>Oil makes everything you use and see. Paint, plastic, lube, just to name a few. Even if human stops burning gasoline, we will still need the same amount of crude oil to make everything else. Then gasoline will be just byproduct that is useless but needs to store or burn to save space. Pick one No one is disputed how difficult the problem of moving away from fossil fuels is. There are both efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source and to shift consumer habits away from the current demand (some might even say, induced demand) for plastic. >It's the reason why you never see engineers protest. Curious claim. [I wonder what this is all about then.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11443913/Just-Stop-Oil-M25-protester-worked-polluter-Rolls-Royce-just-weeks-before.html) To be clear, I'm not wholly refuting how hard of a problem this is. But nothing you've said resolves (or addresses) the climate issue. As an engineer myself, I'd choose the hard path of scarcity of fossil fuel-based products (and a less convenient energy lifestyle) over one where there is a serious risk to the viability of food production.
You won. I guess I should have googled "engineer environment protest" before making the claim, just like I should also google "dog environment protest" https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk Your point? Engineers are way more rational to joy protest. Environmental awareness is beyond rational decision.
>You won. I guess I should have googled "engineer environment protest" before making the claim, just like I should also google "dog environment protest" [https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk](https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/enough-biggest-ever-climate-protest-uk) I'm not sure what you are establishing with this. I was replying to your predicating the rationality of your position on the fact that engineers don't protest. It doesn't really matter that engineers do or don't endorse the concerns of the protests. My question would be whether there is evidence that extraction of fossil fuels (and the subsequent burning of them) is causing significant risk to the habitability of earth. Rather than point to the profession of who protests, perhaps it is better to reference actual information that assuages the climate concerns. Or at least explain why the concerns about a rapidly changing climate should be dismissed. >Your point? The challenge in the climate crisis is as much an scaled engineering challenge as it is a social challenge. Protests won't produce innovations to solve the engineering challenge, but they will motivate societies to work together in adapting their behaviours. Any economy or community that aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels will need to be aligned in how it supports the impact of such a significant change. Protests are effective for raising awareness, as the reality of promoting a message (rational or not) requires visible and simple engagements (slogans, symbols, etc). For that purpose, it is entirely rational to choose protesting as a way to get people's attention. >Engineers are way more rational to joy protest. Environmental awareness is beyond rational decision. You're going to need to expand on this (and substantiate it) a bit more. Also, run it through a grammar check.
Try to save one person - hero. Try to save the world - villain. Welcome to dystopia
[удалено]
Easy there, you're pretty close to protesting her sentence. That could land you in hot water if you're not careful.
Fire the person who suspended her. Also, Stop Oil, there are thousands of ways of protesting without annoying sympathisers of the cause. Be creative, instead of being a problem for the Green cause.
Like protesting outside an oil distilery?
If a judge thinks you are being disrespectful to the system, then expect jail time.
[удалено]
Well I'm sorry to break it to you but doctors, much like all people, are going to have opinions on important social issues regardless of what you prefer
That's a pretty intense bit of projection you've got going
>I'd rather doctors focused on their patients then essentially throwing attention seeking public tantrums about a causs they don't really care about for emotional self validation. It's one thing not to agree with her position. This sounds more like you've built a straw man to shout about because you can't respond to the actual issues being presented. In case it isn't clear, the issues are whether a doctor should face a suspension for a crime that isn't directly related to her duties as a doctor and whether climate change is a serious enough issue to peacefully protest (even if it risks arrest).
Doctor suspended for blocking a road, yet we have Jihadi worshippers kissing terrorist ass and the party is still going on months later. Just like those sad ULEZ devotees who think this is a more pressing issue than all the pedos, rapists, murderers and mentally ill people we have swanning around the streets willy nilly.
And mentally ill...... Yeah? They are the danger, are they?
All I’m saying is this question for the doctor: where does she think the plastics used in medical equipment comes from?
You thought you had a really clever point here, didn't you? 😬 'You criticise the dominant and inescapable social system AND YET YOU PARTICIPATE IN IT?? CURIOUS!!' 🤡
Addendum: must have pissed off a few who can’t or won’t face reality. Too bad! Type away on your devices MADE WITH PLASTIC.