FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Let's talk about Lineker
Let's talk about Lineker
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Climate protestors could be considered HEROES. Pull the other one mate  "
we need gary protesters stood in front of his limo on a saturday with stop oil signs preventing him from going about his lawful business and causing match of the day to be cancelled.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just another greedy bastard BBC not paying him enough
He could earn millions more elsewhere  "
He should go and do it then. The BBC is taxpayer funded and people working for it should be doing it out of a sense of public duty, not because they want lots of cash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just another greedy bastard BBC not paying him enough
He could earn millions more elsewhere Why dosen,t he then "
Because he likes working at the BBC and isn’t greedy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just another greedy bastard BBC not paying him enough
He could earn millions more elsewhere
He should go and do it then. The BBC is taxpayer funded and people working for it should be doing it out of a sense of public duty, not because they want lots of cash. "
That makes no sense unless you’re saying they should work for free |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"I hope somebody gets to ask him if he stands by the vandalism and destruction caused by JSO, I would be very interested in hearing what he has to say. "
Gary Lineker believes disruptive climate protesters could be considered "heroes" if the world takes action against the climate crisis, and says "it's very worrying" people are being arrested for protesting.
He actually said “ The only demonstrations that really work are disruptive ones."
He was not agreeing with vandalism but the people who demonstrate by blocking roads knowing full well that they will be arrested for their actions.
The whole point of protest and demonstrations is to inconvenience people which gets people talking about these issues.
Writing an angry letter to the newspaper isn’t going to work….
To that extent they have succeeded…. As this thread proves.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope somebody gets to ask him if he stands by the vandalism and destruction caused by JSO, I would be very interested in hearing what he has to say.
Gary Lineker believes disruptive climate protesters could be considered "heroes" if the world takes action against the climate crisis, and says "it's very worrying" people are being arrested for protesting.
He actually said “ The only demonstrations that really work are disruptive ones."
He was not agreeing with vandalism but the people who demonstrate by blocking roads knowing full well that they will be arrested for their actions.
The whole point of protest and demonstrations is to inconvenience people which gets people talking about these issues.
Writing an angry letter to the newspaper isn’t going to work….
To that extent they have succeeded…. As this thread proves.
"
I don't think this thread proves what you think it does. This isn't a case of 'all publicity is good publicity'.
From what I can see, they're losing the support of the public. Every cause needs public support to succeed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
"
Are you seriously saying that the reduction if not complete removal of oil is an unknown to us?
The reliance on oil means we cannot simply stop using it. Work is underway in many sectors to reduce oil consumption and develop new consumables that are not made from oil.
So what is it they are actually doing, telling us something we already know by vandalism and disruption. They have no idea how to debate and promote their views, when challenged. Ask them what they want, they spew out long winded vitriol, ask them what would happen if the country stopped using oil today, and you will see their eyes glaze over.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
"
You can see it as a success if you please but the vast majority disagree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
Are you seriously saying that the reduction if not complete removal of oil is an unknown to us?
The reliance on oil means we cannot simply stop using it. Work is underway in many sectors to reduce oil consumption and develop new consumables that are not made from oil.
So what is it they are actually doing, telling us something we already know by vandalism and disruption. They have no idea how to debate and promote their views, when challenged. Ask them what they want, they spew out long winded vitriol, ask them what would happen if the country stopped using oil today, and you will see their eyes glaze over.
"
The validity of their argument and the intelligence of their debate I was not promoting.
It was the principle of protesting and demonstrating that I was agreeing with.
To make it clear I don’t believe in vandalism to further any cause.
But protesters (for any cause whether I support it or not) that cause disruption and inconvenience to the public and government will always have my support.
The right to protest should not have been further criminalised. The police already had enough powers to deal effectively with public order… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
"
Well said , without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
Are you seriously saying that the reduction if not complete removal of oil is an unknown to us?
The reliance on oil means we cannot simply stop using it. Work is underway in many sectors to reduce oil consumption and develop new consumables that are not made from oil.
So what is it they are actually doing, telling us something we already know by vandalism and disruption. They have no idea how to debate and promote their views, when challenged. Ask them what they want, they spew out long winded vitriol, ask them what would happen if the country stopped using oil today, and you will see their eyes glaze over.
The validity of their argument and the intelligence of their debate I was not promoting.
It was the principle of protesting and demonstrating that I was agreeing with.
To make it clear I don’t believe in vandalism to further any cause.
But protesters (for any cause whether I support it or not) that cause disruption and inconvenience to the public and government will always have my support.
The right to protest should not have been further criminalised. The police already had enough powers to deal effectively with public order…"
What they are doing has stepped over the line of protesting and turned it into vandalism and criminal damage.
They will be fined and they will have severely restricted their future job prospects.
I watched their video and noticed middle aged women cheering them on by name, shy were these more worldly wise women not standing shoulder to shoulder with them?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
Well said , without protests (including strikes) we would have nothing "
We've been through this. 'Nothing' is nothing but overdramatic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just another greedy bastard BBC not paying him enough
He could earn millions more elsewhere "
"
He probably could earn a lot more elsewhere but he wouldn't have the same platform."
'Getting paid' and 'earning' are not necessarily connected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just another greedy bastard BBC not paying him enough
He could earn millions more elsewhere
He probably could earn a lot more elsewhere but he wouldn't have the same platform.
'Getting paid' and 'earning' are not necessarily connected."
Does he not get paid a healthy salary from BT sport and Walker's snacks?
The clip of Gary actually shitting himself during a world cup game against Ireland is my enduring image of him. I'd say is probably his best television work to date!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
I think Lineker is good example of how this country has changed.
People would rather take a steer on life from a celebrity over a politician, definitely more than parents and teachers.
Opinions owned by the slickest advertiser
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Nothing that Gary Linekar has said about this subject, or indeed any of his other recent interventions has been wrong.
He is an intelligent, thoughtful and pragmatic person and he speaks truthfully and from the heart.
Unfortunately, his views seem to trigger some people simply because these people can't cope with other people who don't hate protestors, refugees and asylum seekers.
Thinking through issues and articulating the truth, even if it is unpalatable is something that has gone missing from the public discourse in recent years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public "
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing "
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?"
Terrorists murder people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?"
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change."
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect."
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion."
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything "
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists. "
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?"
It’s not even remotely the same as murdering people, blowing up buildings, flying places into the twin towers etc though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?"
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable."
You do know what terrorism means? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable.
You do know what terrorism means? "
Words change, have different meanings (this is how it usually works when someone give the literal meaning) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable.
You do know what terrorism means? "
I know what the dictionary says. Is this where you tell me that like "woke" it means something completely different? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable.
You do know what terrorism means?
I know what the dictionary says. Is this where you tell me that like "woke" it means something completely different?"
Mind reader too?
If you know what the definition is you can see how people like the poster that started this sub-thread, could be drawn into comparing their actions as terrorism.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable.
You do know what terrorism means?
I know what the dictionary says. Is this where you tell me that like "woke" it means something completely different?
Mind reader too?
If you know what the definition is you can see how people like the poster that started this sub-thread, could be drawn into comparing their actions as terrorism.
"
Not a mind reader, hence why I asked you a question.
"Terrorism" implies violence.
I still think it's a silly comparison. Especially considering that the police lock these people up, protecting oil companies from any risks to their profits. The poster has nothing to worry about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to."
That's a huge stretch.
And why do you try to vilify people who don't agree with the right wing media stance that protestors who endangers oil company profits should be locked up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Personally I believe that anti terror legislation should be used you got people trying to protect sports events and the public they no idea if it a terrorist incidence or a protest and that momentary panic where there unsure cause alarm to a large number of security and sporting public
Any danger to fossil fuels profits needs to be treated as terrorism?
Amazing
What are the key differences between JSO protests and terrorism?
Most bizarre question ever.
I would say that one wants to cause terror. And one wants more action on climate change.
Why most bizarre, bit of a stretch...
If you put away your bias for one moment and consider the actions and intentions the lines can be blurred quite quickly. Extreme actions or tactics in protests may cross into the realm of terrorism.
It could be argued the constant threat towards targets such as sports and gathering of people is a form of terrorism. JSO do not announce who they are targeting, it is unknown but it is known that events have been targeted for a period of time, again it could argued this has become threat, which is also terrorism.
The person who first posted about terrorism and JSO has linked the 2 things together, so it has had an effect.
I think it's a ridiculous comparison.
But fair play for your opinion.
What would your feelings on Lineket be if he was expressing opposite opinions?
IE. We shouldn't allow people to protest, we should protect oil companies profits over protecting the environment.
Or the other one he gets stick for, immigrants.
IE. We should blame immigrants for everything and show them less compassion.
What’s with the hypotheticals? Nothing to do with anything
Could say the same about trying to draw a parallel between people who want to prioritise tackling climate change, with terrorists.
I didn’t do that, I argued that the poster that did do that had a point and explained how.
He has a point whether you agree with it or not, but it is interesting how you have just dismissed the posters worry that these people are behaving like terrorists because you support their cause.
Not very liberal of you is it? Out of interest where is the line in the sand for you in terms of the vandalism and criminality? Do you support the vandalism and criminality through their actions at Chelsea flower show, or the painting of the BOE and other landmarks, trespassing onto the F1 track, would you condemn any of those acts of criminality?
They're not behaving like terrorists. He doesn't need to worry. The government will continue to lock up protestors to protect oil company profits.
He has nothing to worry about.
I don't support vandalism. But to compare it to terrorist activities is just laughable.
You do know what terrorism means?
I know what the dictionary says. Is this where you tell me that like "woke" it means something completely different?
Mind reader too?
If you know what the definition is you can see how people like the poster that started this sub-thread, could be drawn into comparing their actions as terrorism.
Not a mind reader, hence why I asked you a question.
"Terrorism" implies violence.
I still think it's a silly comparison. Especially considering that the police lock these people up, protecting oil companies from any risks to their profits. The poster has nothing to worry about. "
The police protecting oil company profits, you’re having a laugh!! Remember the protestors blocking oil refineries and causing a a rush on fuel? They were there far to long and caused economic issues! The Police are arresting these criminals because they’re breaking the law. I love how you ignore so many points, such as their actions have created a new public order bill that people like yourself have been upset about. People are scared to protest now apparently, but hey ho carry on regardless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to.
That's a huge stretch.
And why do you try to vilify people who don't agree with the right wing media stance that protestors who endangers oil company profits should be locked up. "
You've now had 2 explanations, one of them straight from the dictionary. You continue to say 'that's a huge stretch' withoutbputting forward any counter argument, so yeah, I'll call you a virtuer.
Maybe if you tried to engage you'd get more real discussion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to.
That's a huge stretch.
And why do you try to vilify people who don't agree with the right wing media stance that protestors who endangers oil company profits should be locked up. "
The liberals are the worst for closing down opinions that don’t align to their ideology.
Shocking displays of intolerance and a lack of social respect, but what really puts the icing on the cake is how they always answer questions that were never asked to make a point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to."
When I saw the question a but further up asking about terrorism and jso actions I thought that was a bit strange. The closest I could think of was that they both seek change and both are prepared to act illegally. However I always looked at terrorists as people that use extreme violence to get their way. As yet jso have not gone there and hope they don't. But with the definition of a terrorist you gave I can see why some might make that link (as things stand, I am not one of them and hope they don't cause n e to change my mind) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to.
When I saw the question a but further up asking about terrorism and jso actions I thought that was a bit strange. The closest I could think of was that they both seek change and both are prepared to act illegally. However I always looked at terrorists as people that use extreme violence to get their way. As yet jso have not gone there and hope they don't. But with the definition of a terrorist you gave I can see why some might make that link (as things stand, I am not one of them and hope they don't cause n e to change my mind)"
I personally wouldn't use that word either but I do understand why people would use it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I see our 2 regular soapbox virtuers are being true to form as always.
Take a second to see the explanation you've been given and have a think about it for a minute.
I'm genuinely astounded how quickly 'liberals' dismiss things these days because they don't agree. Not agreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong.
TERRORISM:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
That is exactly what JSO and the likes are up to.
When I saw the question a but further up asking about terrorism and jso actions I thought that was a bit strange. The closest I could think of was that they both seek change and both are prepared to act illegally. However I always looked at terrorists as people that use extreme violence to get their way. As yet jso have not gone there and hope they don't. But with the definition of a terrorist you gave I can see why some might make that link (as things stand, I am not one of them and hope they don't cause n e to change my mind)
I personally wouldn't use that word either but I do understand why people would use it. "
And that was the point on pushback. It is so easy for people to tell others they are talking / thinking nonsense but when you look at the whole picture you can see why the poster that compared their actions to terrorism arrived at his position.
Dismissing others opinions leads to resentment and further misunderstandings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The mere fact that something is being discussed is a success.
As the issue has been highlighted in the public consciousness.
Whether it has public support or not is irrelevant it’s getting issue noticed.
The early suffragette movement in the 1840’s was met by with derision by the public. But a movement was born and change happened.
Are you seriously saying that the reduction if not complete removal of oil is an unknown to us?
The reliance on oil means we cannot simply stop using it. Work is underway in many sectors to reduce oil consumption and develop new consumables that are not made from oil.
So what is it they are actually doing, telling us something we already know by vandalism and disruption. They have no idea how to debate and promote their views, when challenged. Ask them what they want, they spew out long winded vitriol, ask them what would happen if the country stopped using oil today, and you will see their eyes glaze over.
The validity of their argument and the intelligence of their debate I was not promoting.
It was the principle of protesting and demonstrating that I was agreeing with.
To make it clear I don’t believe in vandalism to further any cause.
But protesters (for any cause whether I support it or not) that cause disruption and inconvenience to the public and government will always have my support.
The right to protest should not have been further criminalised. The police already had enough powers to deal effectively with public order…"
Well said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
