Causal link found between activists and stupidity

Tangojoe

Well-known member
As I read reports of Extinction Rebellion protesters vandalising Barclays Bank in London, I realise that the very thing they are protesting about is being promoted by the need for the bank to manufacture and replace £250,000 worth of windows. Their latest action follows last week's vandalism of London's Bank of England financial centre.

Maybe if the numbskulls were made to pay for the damage they might understand that wanton vandalism does nothing for their cause and they might show a little more consideration for other people.


 

Discojohndeary

Well-known member
As I read reports of Extinction Rebellion protesters vandalising Barclays Bank in London, I realise that the very thing they are protesting about is being promoted by the need for the bank to manufacture and replace £250,000 worth of windows. Their latest action follows last week's vandalism of London's Bank of England financial centre.

Maybe if the numbskulls were made to pay for the damage they might understand that wanton vandalism does nothing for their cause and they might show a little more consideration for other people.


What nobody's mentioned, is the following:- "The protests come as Barclays faces a second consecutive year of shareholder pressure on its position as Europe’s largest fossil fuel financier, after a shareholder resolution has been filed for the bank’s upcoming AGM on 5 May.

The resolution calls for financing and exposure to coal, oil and gas to fall in line with the Paris Agreement’s climate goals."

Yeah, the smashed windows are counter-productive, but the shareholders' stance is far more significant, and indicative of a sea change in public opinion. Why would the O/P report so selectively, I wonder?
 

tommytwojags

Well-known member
What nobody's mentioned, is the following:- "The protests come as Barclays faces a second consecutive year of shareholder pressure on its position as Europe’s largest fossil fuel financier, after a shareholder resolution has been filed for the bank’s upcoming AGM on 5 May.

The resolution calls for financing and exposure to coal, oil and gas to fall in line with the Paris Agreement’s climate goals."

Yeah, the smashed windows are counter-productive, but the shareholders' stance is far more significant, and indicative of a sea change in public opinion. Why would the O/P report so selectively, I wonder?

Nothing selective in the OP. Vandals are causing criminal damage to property and banks are legally lending money to businesses.
 

Tangojoe

Well-known member
Yeah, the smashed windows are counter-productive, but the shareholders' stance is far more significant, and indicative of a sea change in public opinion. Why would the O/P report so selectively, I wonder?
Your post seems a bit selective to me. In civilised society, company shareholders have the opportunity to put forward proposals at the AGM to amend the company's practices. Or, if they have severe psychological issues or are of a criminal persuasion, they can cause hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage to property, or maybe tear down some statues.


Banks used to legally lend money to businesses involved in the slave trade. That didn’t make it right. Thankfully though that was all brought to an end as a result of protests and activism.

Sounds like you support the hammer and chisel vandals? God forbid that criminal damage and threats of violence determine company policy in this country.
 
Last edited:

Matesrates

Well-known member
Did the Chartists break the law? Were they wrong to do so?
Did the Suffragettes break the law? Were they wrong to do so?
Did Rosa Parks break the law? Was she wrong to do so?
Are the Myanmar protesters breaking the law? Are they wrong to do so?
If they break your windows would you be ok with that?
 

Matesrates

Well-known member
Why would they want to? I sense deviation from the subject and expect it to be transferred to me for the remaining few seconds.
Just the point that if his windows were smashed because someone didn’t like what he does, would that be ok? No it wouldn’t, because criminal damage should never be justified.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
The worlds gone mad, what we rioting over tomorrow ? Every day there’s something else racist and a mother mob on the hunt to cause trouble. Its all getting very silly.
I hope the mother mob got the packed lunches and school uniforms ready before they went on the hunt for trouble!!
 

Tangojoe

Well-known member
I think pretty much everyone on here condemns violence in any form and many have said so.
Some people just like to make a point not everyone has condemned it thus far shame really.

You would like to think so Jaffa. Most people understand that violence achieves nothing. Unfortunately, the vandals who go around London smashing bank windows seem to attract an inordinate amount of support on this site.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
You would like to think so Jaffa. Most people understand that violence achieves nothing. Unfortunately, the vandals who go around London smashing bank windows seem to attract an inordinate amount of support on this site.
As do the bus burners described as a few kids chucking wheelie bins about.
 

Discojohndeary

Well-known member
Your post seems a bit selective to me. In civilised society, company shareholders have the opportunity to put forward proposals at the AGM to amend the company's practices. Or, if they have severe psychological issues or are of a criminal persuasion, they can cause hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage to property, or maybe tear down some statues.




Sounds like you support the hammer and chisel vandals? God forbid that criminal damage and threats of violence determine company policy in this country.
Of course my post was selective, as was yours. That was precisely my point, and I'm reassured to see that the penny finally...........dropped.
You chose to focus on the violence. A more insightful reader might have observed that, despite the sensationalist headline, half the story was devoted to the conflict between Barclays and its shareholders. This is what I chose to draw attention to, in order to redress the balance.
 

Tangojoe

Well-known member
Of course my post was selective, as was yours. That was precisely my point, and I'm reassured to see that the penny finally...........dropped.
You chose to focus on the violence. A more insightful reader might have observed that, despite the sensationalist headline, half the story was devoted to the conflict between Barclays and its shareholders. This is what I chose to draw attention to, in order to redress the balance.

OK let me put it another way, people who think it's a good thing to smash a bank's windows because they don't agree with its policies are criminals. Those who think they are right to do it are fukcing retards. Hope that was insightful enough for you.
 

Discojohndeary

Well-known member
At no point did I agree with the violence, as my previous posts reveal. You are wilfully distracting from the issue I initially addressed, and also resorting to insults and unnecessary invective, which is a very strong indicator of an argument which is unable to sustain itself calmly and logically.

The article dwells at some length on the rift between the bank and its shareholders over its polices on fossil fuels. This is what you chose to ignore, I asserted and continue to maintain. Have another look at the original text.
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
OK let me put it another way, people who think it's a good thing to smash a bank's windows because they don't agree with its policies are criminals. Those who think they are right to do it are fukcing retards. Hope that was insightful enough for you.
Do you accept that sometimes in our history it has been necessary to break the law to bring about change?
Was the criminal act of invading the pitch against Huddersfield wrong? Lots of people supported those that broke the law on that occasion?
The people breaking the windows accept that they are carrying out a criminal act. They believe however that the cause is so important that an act of minor criminal damage is less important than drawing attention to a worthwhile cause. I would not go as far personally myself but that does not mean either that the cause is wrong.
I would also add that in the past non violent peaceful protest has also had the organisation ridiculously classed as a terrorist organisation by the current Home Secretary.
 

Tangojoe

Well-known member
Do you accept that sometimes in our history it has been necessary to break the law to bring about change?
Was the criminal act of invading the pitch against Huddersfield wrong? Lots of people supported those that broke the law on that occasion?
The people breaking the windows accept that they are carrying out a criminal act. They believe however that the cause is so important that an act of minor criminal damage is less important than drawing attention to a worthwhile cause. I would not go as far personally myself but that does not mean either that the cause is wrong.

In simple terms my answer is that violence and criminal damage are not justifiable unless they are for self-protection or to prevent violence or criminal damage perpetrated by the victim. In this case, the banks had not presented any threat to the perpetrators, not broken the law and not acted violently. There are well-defined channels for challenging companies' corporate policies and these are already being pursued by the shareholders of Barclays Bank.

Somebody once said Vandalism and violence are a reliable indicator of the degree of development of society. What we saw in London was a primitive reaction by individuals insisting that the world does what they demand and is further evidence of the "we want it and we want it now" movement that is becoming a blight on the world.
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
Extinction rebellion argue that climate change and the fossil fuels industry are already putting people's lives at risk. The WHO estimates that over 150,000 deaths annually are caused by climatic change, and that in the EEA including the UK (data from 2018) 379,000 premature deaths are the result of air pollution. It would seem therefore that the agents that finance the fossil fuel industry are causing damage and harm to people on a very large scale and so would in their opinion justify criminal damage. As you suggest that violence against a perpetrator may be acceptable in self defence then perhaps XR are less extreme in the persuance of personal safety than yourself.
 

Chunkylad

Well-known member
If we can just stop breeding for a while, climate change reversal would be massively boosted.
It becomes an ethics debate as always. Is it right that people can have more than one child and therefore increase or maintain the population levels?
Our abuse of fossil fuels and food production are merely a result of mass population growth. However it’s our human right to have 20 kids and then go and protest against companies like Shell, Barclays and Macdonalds.

Maybe extinction rebellion should be protesting at maternity wards?
 

Jaffa_The_Hut

Well-known member
Extinction rebellion argue that climate change and the fossil fuels industry are already putting people's lives at risk. The WHO estimates that over 150,000 deaths annually are caused by climatic change, and that in the EEA including the UK (data from 2018) 379,000 premature deaths are the result of air pollution. It would seem therefore that the agents that finance the fossil fuel industry are causing damage and harm to people on a very large scale and so would in their opinion justify criminal damage. As you suggest that violence against a perpetrator may be acceptable in self defence then perhaps XR are less extreme in the persuance of personal safety than yourself.
I’ve never seen or heard of a death yet that’s been caused by climate change.

I wonder how many of these 150,000 deaths actually have the cause of death bring climate change on the death certificate?

Oh and before you go off on one I’am not disputing the findings I’am just asking the obvious questions.
 

Poultongirl

Well-known member
And yet the Ulster riots go by uncommented on by some?
Give over it’s a few kids lobbing the odd wheelie bin down the street during lockdown, hardly constitutes a riot😀
Extinction rebellion argue that climate change and the fossil fuels industry are already putting people's lives at risk. The WHO estimates that over 150,000 deaths annually are caused by climatic change, and that in the EEA including the UK (data from 2018) 379,000 premature deaths are the result of air pollution. It would seem therefore that the agents that finance the fossil fuel industry are causing damage and harm to people on a very large scale and so would in their opinion justify criminal damage. As you suggest that violence against a perpetrator may be acceptable in self defence then perhaps XR are less extreme in the persuance of personal safety than yourself.
could not give two shits about climate change👍🏻🇬🇧 In fact I think it’s a load of tripe🤣
 
Top
X