Politics

New government attempt to criminalise lock-on protests

The government announced today it was reviving plans to make the popular protest technique of locking on a criminal offence.

Lock-on protest at Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, 1 June 2020. Photo: Extinction Rebellion

The measure is a key part of a new public order bill outlined in the Queen’s Speech.

Previous attempts to criminalise locking on, where protesters lock themselves to each other, objects or buildings, were voted down in January 2022 by peers.

The protest has long been used by opponents of fossil fuel and fracking operations and more recently by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.

Under the new legislation, going equipped to lock on would also become a criminal offence. People found guilty of both new offences could face a maximum penalty of six months in prison and unlimited fines.

The bill would also make it illegal to obstruct major transport works, such as HS2, with a maximum six month prison sentence on conviction. People found guilty of interfering with key national infrastructure, such as airports, railways and printworks, could face up to 12 months in jail. Both new offences would also carry unlimited fines on conviction under government plans.

Two other measures rejected by the House of Lords earlier this year have also been brought back in the new bill.

Police would get extended powers to stop and search people and seize articles related to protests.  And serious disruption prevention orders would allow police to ban people from attending protests.

The home secretary, Priti Patel, said today:

“As the Queen’s speech outlined, the public order bill backs the police to prevent antisocial protests from disrupting people’s lives.”

She added:

“The law-abiding, responsible majority have had enough of anti-social, disruptive protests carried out by a self-indulgent minority who seem to revel in causing mayhem and misery for the rest of us.”

But environmental and human rights campaigners described the bill as oppressive and said it would not stop people from protesting.

They said measures such as votes for women, legalisation of trades unions and decriminalisation of same-sex relationships would not have happened without protests like those that the government wants to make illegal.

The Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, tweeted:

“Will be working cross party again to defeat. Our right to peaceful protest should be protected, not attacked. Shame on government for bring back these dangerous proposals.”

The human rights organisation, Liberty, said:

“These rehashed measures to crack down on protest are yet another power grab from a government determined to shut down accountability. Protest is a right, not a gift from the state – measures like these are designed to stop ordinary people making their voices heard.”

Megan Randles, Greenpeace UK’s political campaigner, said:

“The right to protest is one of the safety valves of our democracy. It allows ordinary people to protect their health, families and homes from harm when all other safeguards have failed.

“The government’s attempt to criminalise peaceful dissent is a threat to everyone’s right to stand up for what they believe in.

“Time and again, it’s activism that has dragged a reluctant UK government into confronting vital issues, whether it’s the climate crisis or women’s rights.

“Ministers who are so keen to talk about freedoms at every turn should rethink this attack on one of the most fundamental freedoms we have.”

The police monitoring group, Netpol, which campaigned against similar measures in the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill, said the new serious disruption prevention orders were “a particularly dangerous escalation in the government’s efforts to suppress dissenting voices”.

The group said:

“When the government proposed these severe restrictions on individuals before, they did not even require a conviction.

“Instead, the courts would simply need to ‘reasonably believe’ a campaigner had carried out protest activities resulting in, or likely to result in, ‘serious disruption’.

“Anyone who has organised with a direct action group or participated in a large-scale protest could be at risk.”

Netpol said the new powers may intimidate some people from exercising their right to protest. But it said:

“as long as the climate crisis – the biggest challenge the world faces – is ignored by governments then protests will inevitably continue.”

31 replies »

  1. So, “it will not stop people from protesting” so why are some then saying it is intended to do so?

    If it is so obvious it will not stop protest why then try and claim that is the intention?

    It really is fooling no one. Protestors claim they are the ones with greater intelligence around issues, well, they should then demonstrate (oops) that in finding ways to protest that do not create a major infringement of the rights of others-and deliberately aimed to do so.

    Silly actions have cost public support and turned it to public anger. Those responsible for the silly actions are the culprits, not the ones who have to deal with the public anger.

  2. Super glue was invented in 1942 by Dr. Harry Coover. He was part of a wartime research team developing clear plastics for use in precision gun sights. They unintentionally discovered a chemical compound of extraordinary stickiness, but they initially saw no use for it in their research.

    Only later did Coover see the potential in cyanoacrylates as a glue, and it was produced for commercial sale in 1958 by Loctite. It quickly became hugely popular as a useful and versatile household adhesive, particularly loved by a strange section of society who like to glue themselves to buildings, roads and pavements with the potential thrill of being run over by a vehicle, preferably an EV.

  3. I think I’m right in saying that the components of Superglue come from oil or coal, maybe with a touch of added hydrogen cyanide, perfectly safe for the environment then. Also of course, if they sticking themselves to tarmac, that also will come from a fossil fuel. I’m not certain of my facts, I’m not a scientist, just based on a one-sided trawl on the net, but I’ll stick (ho, ho) my neck out anyway.

    • Eli-G, interesting post and it’s very important that consumers are made aware of the situation, especially when they are constantly informed by the industry that renewables are the cheapest and best method for reducing electricity bills. However the inconvenient truth will no doubt be ignored by some on here.

      The idea behind CfD’s is that operators sell each unit of electricity that they generate for an agreed fixed price. If the wholesale price which is set by the marginal supplier (most expensive) on the day, is lower than the agreed CfD ‘strike’ price, the operator receives subsidies to make up the difference, if the wholesale price is higher, the operator pays back the amount it receives above the strike price.

      The link that you posted highlights that at least two new offshore wind farms chose to delay activating their agreed CfD’s and have been selling their electricity at the higher wholesale price making unexpected high profits since the energy crisis commenced.

      Postponing or delaying the uptake of a CfD for up to 3 or in some cases 4 years, is not against the rules and has left the government with no other option except for writing to renewable energy companies and asking them to play fair and nicely.

      This is on top of other news that renewable energy companies who operate under the Renewable Obligation scheme (a system that will be funded by consumers until 2037) but do not sell their electricity at a fixed price, have also been making vast profits during the energy crisis.

      The RO system presently still applies to most of the UK’s onshore wind farms, around two thirds of the UK’s offshore wind farms and around half of the UK’s solar parks.

      Under this scheme the operator receives a fixed subsidy payment for each unit of electricity they generate plus the wholesale price. The RO subsidies are presently set at £55 MWh for onshore wind, £103.95 MWh for offshore wind and £78.65 MWh for solar.

      In both cases it proves that the eco capitalists are just as evil, greedy and uncaring with regards to fuel poverty as the fossil fuel capitalists. If Rishi or Boris do decide to impose a windfall tax on energy companies, they need to include both fossil fuel and these renewable companies.

  4. What a curious display?

    It looks like the usual suspects have verbally stupor-glued themselves onto this subject? And locked themselves on until the truth police carefully prize them free? Never mind, it’s only the usual delusional, totalitarian tiptoe into the Fake News Word Order….

    There is something else to all this, of course, other than the stupor-glued locked on knee-jerk reactionaries, that is.

    And that is the false flag Extinction Rebellion and their sacrificial adjunct Insulate Britain’s funding by the likes of George Soros and others, in order to deliberately provoke the Hegelian dialectic result of problem, reaction, and pre-prepared solution to criminalise any protest at all.

    Extinction Rebellion and their sacrificial adjunct Insulate Britain were apparently deliberately organised in order to demonise any form of public peaceful protest whatsoever. Contrary to the usual claims of “it won’t prevent peaceful protest” it seems. Except, the mere fact of supergluing and locking on, is peaceful protest, isn’t it. And from the report above, that is a peaceful protest action that is attempted to be made illegal. Which is not at all what some like to claim.

    Then there are displays such as this:

    Gravitas: Shocking behaviour by British Police

    And the government want to make peaceful protest, such as gluing and locking on, which is inconvenient, but peaceful, illegal. But not take the same legislative action to correct police violence, racism, misogyny, and fascist behaviour. There are no restraints upon the police in the Police, Crime, and Sentencing Bill. That effectively turns the bill into the Laughing Policeman Crimes and Sanctioning of Old Bill. However, before the first stage of the bill went to the House of Lords, which they subsequently rejected and threw it out. The police declared publicly that they did not want the new bill, since it effectively drove a wedge between the police and public, which was already occurring even without this new bill.

    The Old Bill does not want The New Bill.

    Regardless of claims to the contrary, which are clearly incorrect.

    Also, there are no new protections for women, or their rights to protest, which was clearly exposed in the commemoration of Sarah Everard. For which, a Metropolitan Policeman, Wayne Couzens, who was previously employed as a Diplomatic Officer.

    Sarah Everard: How Wayne Couzens planned her murder
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58746108

    Wayne Couzens a Metropolitan Policeman, admitted to the kidnap, rape, murder and attempts to burn the body to conceal the evidence, on 3 March 2021of the 33-year-old marketing executive Sarah Everard when he appeared in court several months later.

    All of which puts the peaceful supergluing and locking on into peaceful perspective. The fact that there are no clauses in the Police, Crime, and Sentencing Bill to provide any extra protection to women and only mentions women in the reference section.

    There is nothing at all to prevent the government and police misuse of the bill to allow police to violently crush any protest the government, or the police, don’t like and are not even required to give a reason for their behaviour.

    There are no new controls on the violent and inappropriate enforcement methods of police behaviour. In fact, there is even greater leeway to impose even worse violent and inappropriate enforcement methods without any redress at all.

    But what is proposed, is to resurrect the previous attempts to criminalise locking on, where peaceful protesters lock themselves to each other, or to objects or buildings. The proposals for which were voted down in January 2022 by peers.

    So now, because there are even more stringent and totalitarian moves to further criminalise peaceful protest, while there is nothing to actually protect the public from violent Draconian undemocratic police behaviours that are sanctioned and encouraged by the government. All of which would have made the suffragette movement, the anti-slavery movement and so many other Human Rights that have been fought for long and hard, not by government, but by the very same people who these Draconian bills are intended to crush.

    Then the usual suspects cheer and sneer as if it’s some sort of violent video game. Not the lives and freedoms of real people to protest against totalitarian tiptoe into Great Britain.

    Shame on them.

    • Phil it’s been fun having you as an ally for these past few years, so I’m really sorry to see you now blaming non violent climate protestors for the authoritarian reaction of the government.

      As for XR being “false flag” / “deliberately organised in order to demonise any form of public peaceful protest” etc. that is all sounding like you have read too many conspiracy theories. It is what it is, a lot of people terrified for their future, campaigning for government to heed the increasingly desperate warnings from climate scientists.

      • https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/29/just-stop-oils-protests-funded-by-us-philanthropists

        “Just Stop Oil’s disruptive protests, blamed for petrol shortages across parts of England, have been funded by US philanthropists who say they want to incite a global “spring uprising” over climate change.

        The environmental activists, whose oil terminal blockades have enraged ministers and rightwing commentators, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Los Angeles-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF).

        “We’re their lead institutional funder,” CEF’s executive director, Margaret Klein Salamon, said. “I think actually their exclusive institutional funder at this point.”

        On Friday, eight Just Stop Oil activists were still being held after 43 were arrested for allegedly blockading and smashing petrol pumps at service stations on London’s M25 orbital motorway. About 400 people have been arrested more than 1,000 times taking part in the campaign since it began less than a month ago, according to organisers’ own tally.”

        “This year CEF has made grants of $1.7m to activists in 25 countries, including the UK, the US, Australia Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland. It has particularly focused on the UK with $650,000 given this year to groups including Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. Salamon confirmed CEF had donated Just Stop Oil hundreds of thousands of dollars. Extinction Rebellion had received about $200,000 from the fund this year, she said.”

        The activists break the law, get fined, go to prison. Do the funders have some liability here?

        • There you go, Paul, you only prove what I said is true. Nothing like the Hegelian Dialectic and controlled opposition to exacerbate a situation that would normally have been a peaceful protest, without any violence or damage, is there.

          All it goes to show, is how effective the method of public manipulation is.

          Yes. Funders and organisers do have some, if not all, liability in violent situations. Or else, how would the government be able to enforce their totalitarian repression laws? Conveniently on time, don’t you think? The only real comment on that, is to prove how effective the problem reaction and solution strategy, if any doubt the situation is really what the government say it is. Timing is everything. It certainly enabled you to spread the message around at such a moment. Didn’t it? Or is that a “conspiracy theory”?

          Strange to provide evidence of just how much you agree with me, isn’t it?

          • I assume you agree that the funders have liability for the crimes the people they fund commit? Extradition papers to be served in California?

            I like the new Public Order Bill, you don’t but that is a different issue.

            • Sorry Paul, I didn’t notice your comment amongst all the ahhh… “contributions” of your colleague.

              I doubt that funding of an organisation that uses the funding to arrange controlled opposition activities that are peaceful, or violent at all, can be made the legal liability of the funders in any court of law here or in California, Paul? Interesting thought though.

              Maybe litigation might be one of the few ways that legal liability for such activities could be pursued.

              I was thinking more of the moral and ethical liability, rather than the convoluted and perhaps already grossly dysfunctional legal system in the west that can even consider, let alone be moved to act upon such a case. Perhaps there will be moral and ethical courts in the future? There is clearly a need for that, but by what method and evidence that could be pursued is beyond any present system. Back to 1984 and Brave New World where the reverse was written about perhaps? the Chinese system of social credit appears to fulfil the reverse of moral and ethical behaviour, and doesn’t even require a court of law to suppress and entire nation. I would not recommend such a system, however. Maybe Priti Patel has that in mind following these bills?

              Perhaps, as you agree that controlled opposition creates a situation where violence can be utilized to create a totalitarian fascist state. Any such funders of controlled opposition would already be well protected from prosecution by the very same totalitarian fascist system.

              Nice thought though.

      • Do not worry, Dorkinian.

        Squabbling amongst yourselves is not new.

        Whilst you figure out who is talking for the “people” and who is simply talking “cobras” the rest of the population would be pleased to get back to their futures, which most are looking forward to, uninterrupted by such self indulgence. If that needs more legislation, then so be it.

      • Hi Dorkinian, No, that is not correct. I didn’t say that at all. Perhaps you could re-read what I did say. Read the section beneath the video.

        The evidence of precisely what I said regarding Extinction Rebellion, as an organization, being funded for nefarious reasons by the likes of George Soros, not its front line protestors, however, who are honest and forthright in their actions and fully believe they are doing it for everyone to benefit from. It is available if you wish to read it. I posted it a couple of years ago. To similar protest I recall. Also, the term “conspiracy theory” is such a discredited one, in any intended use of the false accusation, for whatever reason, that I am surprised that you fell into that trap at all.
        Since that is a typical fossil fuel protagonist’s expression, because the mere accusation of which, is intended to divert attention away from further investigation of the issue it’s intended to conceal behind a silly label. And is intended to avoid having to explain in any detail whatsoever, precisely what is the conspiracy is, that it refers to at all. A sort of get out of jail free card in fake accusation terms, you might say.

        It’s popular amongst those who don’t want to actually discuss the issue that it’s intended to conceal below a silly label. It’s just a fake label aimed at anything that is not wanted to be discussed, with any inconvenient evidence necessary to justify the term. Which it can never achieve. The fact that you use the term in any way at all, is perhaps indicative that you perceive such a thing as a “conspiracy theory” even exists, let alone to use it in such a way when it’s so dismally discredited and has no basis in fact.

        Have you never heard of the “Hegelian Dialectic”, and how it’s used by organisations to exacerbate a given situation, by whatever means, “the problem”.

        Then to control the impact of the organised problem, and use disinformation to exacerbate the problem and create public disquiet and place the blame onto the intended targets, “the reaction”. Remember that the people at the sharp end, are very rarely in on the machinations of the organisations topmost levels. They simply follow the instructions.

        Then the long pre-prepared required “solution” is then imposed, when the solution is much more Draconian, than the manufactured problem in the first place could ever have been.

        The intended solution, would have otherwise been unacceptable for the public and rejected under normal circumstances.

        The process is intended to overwhelm the public opinion in order to make them accept measures that they would not dream of tolerating otherwise. It works too. As is only too evident today.
        The pre-prepared strategy, is to impose the manufactured problem first and foremost, then the media controlled manipulated reaction and then impose the freedom crushing solution that was planned right from the start. There are many, many examples of that being used in the past history, some infamous ones, and in the very recent present, which is still ongoing. It is the most all pervasive of all. As the report indicates.

        • I have said many times, that I would rather “stick” (to coin a word) to the truth of any matter, based upon the evidence and the provable verified documentation, than to follow one or other way of thinking in any issue. Regardless of what it is. Just because both sides have sacred cows that must not be criticised, by one side or the other, because it is is the most popular convenient meme.

          Especially when there are attendant limitation boundaries and no go zones from one point of view. I said the same about the wind generator project in Sweden and gave the link to the film documentary “Headwind 21”. Which exposed the process of clear-cutting a Swedish forest to build wind generators for subsidy money in a location that was totally unsuitable for it.

          Don’t you think it’s better to tell the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is to say from any point of view that would rather not be discussed at all? I would rather tell the truth, even if it’s contrary to my own closely held beliefs. It seems others have no such scruples. Twas ever thus.

          As I have always said, I don’t blame any peaceful protestors at the sticky end of protest, whether they use lock on, supergluing, or chains to demonstrate their objections. Almost everyone, at the front line of protest, are honest and truthful in their actions. As I have so very clearly said many times before. The problem is, that people can be used by infiltrated provocateurs, to turn the entire peaceful demonstration into a reactionary and violent police crack down.

          There have been several court cases quite recently, where provocateurs planted by the police or whatever other organisation are instructed to subvert protest, have worked inside of peaceful protest organisations to spy on, and to turn a peaceful protest into a violent one. They were found out and exposed for doing so.

          However, I have previously provided evidence for you, if you read it, was that the top level organisation of Extinction Rebellion, and their adjunct Insulate Britain, are very clearly funded by such as the likes of George Soros and others, who are busy behind their funding operations, intent on bringing an end to peaceful protest and implementing a totalitarian regime, not just here, but in every country as a means of revolution in countries.

          Perhaps Dorkinian, you have not given such organisations as Extinction rebellion, a really hard and honest look at their intentions and organisational actions that are deliberately intended to promote an authoritarian and totalitarian reaction as a means of forcing conflict change and reaction. That is called, in such circles, “controlled opposition” Which is the process of funding and operating organisations in order to create a provocative situation out of a peaceful one.

          You seem to have ignored the evidence of the police violence against protestors and the irony of making protest illegal, but not exposing the police for their antisocial and violent actions against peaceful protest?

          Interesting Dorkinian. I see that your words had the desired effect amongst your colleagues.

          Never mind.

          Thankfully, I prefer the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

          • It appears that Priti Patel is also angling for the failed Boris Johnsons PM position, by sucking up to the itinerant extremists in the Tory ranks? What that does reveal is that

            Queen’s Speech – Priti Patel accuses Labour MPs of defending ‘murderers, paedophiles, rapists, thugs’ in debate on law and order
            Priti Patel also claimed that immigration lawyers and Labour members have previously begged her not to deport “dangerous foreign criminals”. Wednesday 11 May 2022 14:37, UK
            https://news.sky.com/story/queens-speech-priti-patel-accuses-labour-mps-of-defending-murderers-paedophiles-rapists-thugs-in-debate-on-law-and-order-12610562?fr=operanews

            “Opening the second day of debate in the Commons on the Queen’s Speech, the home secretary declared that “the Conservative Party is the party of law and order” and said the new Public Order Bill will allow police officers to “prevent severe disruption”.”

            “It particularly targets protest groups including Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain which have used disruptive methods to draw attention to the climate crisis, with people who aim to lock themselves or others to buildings, roads or printing presses committing an offence under the new bill.
            The home secretary has repeatedly denied accusations that she is attempting to erode the right to protest through the legislation.”

            Fascinating that Priti Patel isolates Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain as the enemy of law and order, isn’t it. Which only goes to show that a controlled opposition organisation can be used to implement a totalitarian fascist police state quicker than anything else.

            But of course, that would only be a “conspiracy theory” wouldn’t it? A failure of arithmetic in that phrase, perhaps?

            What would be the arithmetic that adds up the 1. Police Crime and Sentencing Bill, 2. The Public Order Bill, 3. The Online Safety Bill, and 4. The Bill of Rights, changes to the Human Rights Act, all in such a short time during “overwhelming” national emergencies?

            1+1+1+1 = A 4th Right, perhaps?

            • Including is not isolating.

              Another attempt to try and state that someone, Priti, has stated something quite different from what she stated, even though her quote was quoted!

              A failure of English comprehension. But, that is the way to manipulate people. Just distort what others have stated. Fortunately, most can read.

              • Ahh, the isolating of individual words to attempt to make a Priti Petty Potty Point gets trotted out a gain. However, the truth is somewhat more obvious to the reader.

                Priti Patel, in specifying only two organisations by name, those being the specifically isolating of Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, and mentioning no others. That is “isolation”.

  5. Who are the usual suspects?

    If the legislation passes the usual suspects will be those who were voted in by the majority. So, by definition, they will be usual.

    (It will pass, because further legislation is required and the majority who were voted in by the majority, will get it passed.)

    The unusual suspects who believe they can continue to do as they wish, and ignore the rights and freedoms of others, can still do so. There will just be greater clarity for the police and greater consequences to the unusual ,antisocial suspects.

    A wedge between the police and public? Not that I can see. Most comment I have heard is regarding that the police should clear the unusual suspects a lot quicker and they should receive greater punishment. If my most people is a smaller number than the real people then the legislation will be overturned by the next party in power in the UK. Good luck with plonking that in a manifesto.

    • Did you notice how any mention of police violence and murder by one metropolitan policeman is now avoided to be mentioned by that intervention, and the lack of any discussion of the complete lack of legislation to control the police actions, that is so effectively avoided by that little diversion? Now you can see how it works. Fascinating stuff.

      Congratulations Dorkinian. A valuable demonstration, now everyone knows.

      Talk about being vindicated so clearly and precisely isn’t it. I would say, this is fun, but it isn’t, is it. In fact, the demonstrated method of manipulation strategy, is revealing and destructive in its effectiveness.

      And clear for everyone to see.

      • [Edited by moderator]

        I have not decided to be anti the medical profession since Dr. Shipman was exposed either.

        To use such a tragic incident to justify an overall position is your choice. The fact that no one was going to take part is their choice.

        • Wasn’t that “contribution” a weaponised narrative comment, using the very same tragic incident to justify an overall position of your own choice? Strange that you use the very same horrible truth to attempt to use it for your own weaponised narrative purposes, isn’t it? Hypocrisy seems to be rife.

          Another inconvenient truth that can’t be tolerated to be mentioned, perhaps.
          Much like the 1 in 5 deaths worldwide per year from fossil fuel pollution.
          The 6th major extinction level event due to fossil fuel pollution.
          The climate destruction due to fossil fuel pollution.
          The 1 in 5 reptile species suffering extinction die to fossil fuel pollution.
          The news that insect counts worldwide have dropped alarmingly for the same reasons.

          Perhaps those are also tragic incidents to justify an overall position is your choice by avoiding mentioning the inconvenient truth?

          To use the avoidance of such tragic incidents to attempt to justify an overall position is your choice to avoid the issues they represent. The fact that one was going to censor facts rather than address the inconvenient, tragic issues is their choice. But not a rational or a moral and ethical one.

          Never mind. The facts speak for themselves. Attempts to censor the multiple inconvenient truths also speaks for itself. Which is just the same dishonest debating technique in clear focus again, isn’t it.

          The emperor not only has no clothes, he doesn’t want anyone else to wear clothes either? The inconvenient clothes of truth become the naked convenience of no clothes by royal decree.

          • So no one wanted to follow that line?

            Good for them.

            Their decision not to. Respect to them for making that decision. No dishonest techniques, just higher standards.

            And, life expectancy across most of the world continues to increase. Another inconvenient garment of truth.

            • Strange contradiction? However, there is one comment, isn’t there. As evidenced by that post above. Or does that indicate the poster, is to be considered a “no one”? No respect due there, then?

              Dishonest debating techniques are precisely what you use all the time, as “demonstrated” only too clearly on this page. Attempts to misrepresent and isolate words out of context in order to turn simple phrases into false narrative accusations are detailed very clearly.

              As for life expectancy increasing across the world. Regarding human being life expectancy, the Life Insurance Industry records of insurance deaths claims, have increased by 37.8% in the last three quarters of 2021. 1 in 5 of the deaths worldwide, per year are due to fossil fuel pollution. 36,000 deaths were caused by fossil fuel pollution recorded in Great Britain in 2021. Figures for 2022, are not yet available.

              As regards animal life expectancy, then the Earth is in the middle of the 6th major extinction level event in the Earths history. 1 in 5 species of reptiles are on the verge of extinction, so not such a load of Cobras or Adders for that matter, not even the arithmetic variety, rather the opposite.

              All animal species are declining due to fossil fuel pollution and loss of habitat, the Amazon forests, that once was a carbon sink (absorber), is now a carbon producer due to clear-cut wood stripping, vast uncontrolled mining and destruction of the animal and plant habitats worldwide because of man’s greed and insanity, the destruction of ecologies and environments, and the gross poisonous pollution, from, guess what, fossil fuels.

              Recent reports are that all insect species are in decline due to the same pollution and destruction of habitats worldwide, including here. Insects used to splatter across windscreens and the bonnets of cars. Now, few if any are similarly killed even in the spring and summer. Insects are the prime source of life diversity. Once insect species are in decline, all other life forms, including humans, are negatively effected. Plants that provide growth of food plants are not pollinated by pollinating insects and animals, and birds die of starvation and their young die before they can fly.

              Oceanic life is also in decline. Already, due to the oceans previously absorbing greenhouse gasses, the degree of carbon absorption can no longer be maintained. The oceans become acidic due to greenhouse gasses, and are no longer able to absorb any more greenhouse gasses. The result is deoxygenated seas, which prevents sea life from breathing in an oxygen starved environment. The lack of the same basic algae and the oceanic plankton life that cannot survive in an oxygen starved, and acidic environment means that larger animals also starve and cannot breathe.

              The atmosphere of the Earth is similarly poisoned by fossil fuel pollution, the greenhouse gasses cause global heating and the pollution destroy the ozone layers that would normally prevent raw solar and cosmic radiation from reaching ground level by reflection, absorption and filtration. The catastrophic fires worldwide are caused by the trees being dried out by excessive radiation, the overhead cables between pylons are overheated and overcharged by the radiation penetration and then discharge into the dried out trees and cause massive out of control fires everywhere even in wet Great Britain. The massive fires across the world are destroying even more habitats for animal, insect and reptile life and are destroying the trees and plant life ability to produce oxygen, which again exacerbates the greenhouse gas problems.

              Then there is macro and microplastic pollution. Macro plastic pollution is choking billions of animal wildlife worldwide on land, in the air and in the oceans. Microplastics now reach into the upper atmosphere, found on the highest mountains, and in the soil everywhere, on and in the oceans, and is found in the lowest oceanic trenches and in every living creature in the oceans including those eaten by human beings. Babies are now found to have microplastics in their blood and organs, and every human being is now polluted by microplastics.

              This is all the fault of human beings, and mainly by the fossil fuel industry. Life is in rapid decline in every form, in every species of flora and fauna, including human beings. Saying in all that devastation of life, for someone to say that life span is increasing, without any substantiated verified and documented proof.

              I have provided links and there are many more than I have already provided to prove what is written there by myself. If any more proof is required, then I will reproduce it and provide many more links to substantiated verified and documented evidence.

    • “Overwhelming public opinion”????

      Oh, once more unto the breach!

      So, the stupid public have been overwhelmed-again. Must be another vote required! What an unexpected establishment supporter, suggesting others can not discern what they want and that should be decided for them. The establishment have made a rich living from that message for many, many, years.

      Perhaps the public are not that stupid, the majority of them support the police majority, and they would like to have the police to protect children from the activities of drug gangs rather than having to remove individuals blocking them going about their business? Some of which is pretty important to them, and certainly no less important than that of others.

      Now, to be added, are the “good” folk within XR who are also unable to discern they have been overwhelmed.

      Interesting, but it leaves me rather underwhelmed.

      • Strange one? No. that is not what I said, is it. Isolating two words out of context, and attempting to make it say something that isn’t there. That is typical. A clear demonstration of the strategy in use. Created out of nothing, in order to create a provocative situation out of an entirely peaceful one.

        Let’s look at what, precisely, I did say, rather than the intended misinformation and misrepresentation. Much better to address the truth, not the misrepresentation of what was clearly written in black and white isn’t it.

        What I did say, however, in its correct context, was this:

        “Then the long pre-prepared required “solution” is then imposed, when the solution is much more Draconian, than the manufactured problem in the first place could ever have been.
        The intended solution, would have otherwise been unacceptable for the public and rejected under normal circumstances.
        The process is intended to overwhelm the public opinion in order to make them accept measures that they would not dream of tolerating otherwise.”

        “The process is intended to overwhelm public opinion” Note the word “intended”.

        You see, I made no inference of whether overwhelming public opinion is even possible, let alone has any success in the use of any such strategy. But of course the correct context was already known, wasn’t it. But it does not succeed once you know what the strategy actually is constructed to do and how it is done. Deception. In a word. Dishonest is another.

        So there you see the very same strategy clearly demonstrated in black and white. That comment above this precisely proves the very strategy I was talking about in its use and its intended effect to make a fake accusation out of nothing of the sort.

        There. Now you can also see who uses such strategies regularly on Drill or Drop. The term used for such debating strategies is called, I am reliably informed:

        Dishonest Debating Techniques. Fascinating isn’t it.

        Two down in one day. That must be a record.

  6. Oh dear, Phil C.

    As long as you are happy. However, your words not mine, so maybe be more careful with the use of your words?

    After all, it is you who has been suggesting that people are so open to being manipulated, and by definition, are therefore not to be held to account for their actions within the proposed Bill.

    I believe that people should be held to account for their actions and being manipulated is no defence. It is their responsibility to make sure they are not. Their actions are the focus of the Bill. Personal responsibility should not be so easily avoided, Phil C. Shouldn’t need an Act to achieve that, but it seems that it does.

    Not to worry. I am sure Dorkinian has now been convinced that he/she has been manipulated (LOL) and will desist.

    Maybe there needs to be a (quiet) protest about false flag protests? Probably without reaction, as his flat tyres may preclude his attendance! But the polluter needs to pay, doesn’t he?! Serves him right for being manipulated?

    It is getting a bit like one of those low budget “horror” movies:

    Initially
    Cobras V Adders (part of the arithmetic species)

    now, the sequel
    Protestor V Protestor.

    • Oh dear Martin,

      As long as you are not happy (or even if you are happy).

      However. Back in the Real World.

      I proved that your words are not mine, just your own weaponised narratives and dishonest debating techniques. So maybe it’s not myself that should be more careful with the use of someone else’s words? Clearly there is no care of the use of your own words.

      So much so, that I had to correct you, not just once, but several times for misrepresenting what I did clearly write.

      No. Wrong again, I said no such thing, I said:

      “The process is intended to overwhelm public opinion” Note the word “intended”. I have never said, “that people are so open to being manipulated, and by definition, are therefore not to be held to account for their actions within the proposed Bill.”

      Those are your own words you attempt to put into my mouth (or onto my keyboard). That is your own conclusion. Not mine.

      I do not put words in your mouth (or keyboard) I suggest you cease in your attempts to put your words in mine (yeeuuuchh!) (or on my keyboard).

      Wrong again. There is no requirement for additional bills, when the law is already quite clear on peaceful protest under the Human Rights Act.

      The rest is just the usual empty weaponised rhetoric and says nothing but what is in your own mind.

      Maybe it is more like your own low budget “horror” movie:

      Initially
      Extinct Cobras V Extinct Adders, (aka “Throw Them Back In The Lake!”, part of the extinct arithmetic species due to fossil fuel pollution)

      Now, the inevitable unwanted prequel:

      The Truth V Priti Patel. (a fantasy of weaponised delusions, narrated by Sir Martin Frederick Collyer Snr.)

      Have a Nice Day.

  7. Nope. Wrong again. In your opinion there is no need for additional Bills. In my opinion, there is, and in the opinion of many more.

    What you have stated is in your own mind, your own opinion. Shared by some others, but then, so are many issues.

    It certainly is not the opinion of many, and the Bill will be passed because such Bills have been researched pretty well before they are put forward for consideration. MPs will then be considering how many in their constituencies will reward them or punish them in a relatively short while for the way they vote. I suspect the Lords will do their best to slow progress, but then they often do until they remember that reform of the Lords is long overdue.

    After all, if such activities are now being sponsored by overseas interests with dubious motives, in order to produce a police controlled state, then much more legislation is required, as any current stuff is, by definition, just not doing the job.

    Took a while, but the end point was inevitable. Sorry, Dorkinian.

    • No. Wrong again. What I stated is the truth in law and the Human Rights Act, (to which UK is a signatory and can’t be undone, even with subsequent bills) Common Law and Criminal Law already provide all the legislation required to deal with any situation. The situation has been manufactured and manipulated the problem was always to create the reaction and the pre-prepared solution. That is not an opinion, it’s the facts. No matter how inconvenient.

      I have detailed how bills have been thrown out and rejected, that goes for the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill and the Public Order Bill have both been rejected previously. I have already provided evidence of the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill having been rejected once previously.

      “Previous attempts to criminalise locking on, where protesters lock themselves to each other, objects or buildings, were voted down in January 2022 by peers.”

      No, Wrong again. There is no necessity for new bills or legislation. Situations are deliberately manufactured in order to create am excuse for Draconian totalitarian bills to be enforced upon the public. All of which is already detailed and explained. But of course that would require someone to actually read what was said, that seems to be a problem by someone that doesn’t even read their own words.

      The situation has been manufactured and fabricated by the Hegelian Dialectic process of “problem, reaction and solution”. The pre-prepared manufactured “solution”, was always, intended to enforce a totalitarian fascist dictatorship and the likes of George Soros, Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain are the weaponised controlled opposition elements to bring that about. It’s all artificial. Fabricated and false.

      Still taking a long time, and still not sinking in is it.

      Twas ever thus.

      [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

Leave a Reply to Shalewatcher Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s