Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
not exactly the best way to win support for your cause are they?
If I was there, and was in possession of an automatic weapon, I don't think there's actually any way I could not do it. They really are the kind of people I hate most.
You've managed to significantly annoy a swathe of people raising awareness on one of the most talked about issues of the day. Good hustle
"half the people getting on these planes could have probably got the train instead, or maybe didn't even need to get a plane at all. they were probably going to their 2nd or 3rd homes."
A) yeah, lets all get the train to america/japan/insert far away country
B) i'm pretty sure people wouldnt spend hours in airports putting up with all the stress and queueing if they really didnt need to
C) yeah, because loads of normal people have 3 homes scattered all around the world.
get a grip, love
"Anita Kelleher had been due to fly to the Irish Republic to attend her father's funeral, but her flight was cancelled.
"His funeral is tonight, the Rosary is tonight. I've missed being at my dad's Rosary tonight and I'm heartbroken," she told the BBC."
these sorts of comments play right into the hands of the Clarkson brigade and completely undermine any good work that people might be trying to do in raising public support for green initiatives
Which is why they were flying with Ryanair
for Christmas, on the train! I really despised her.
whose parents really do own second homes in portugal or italy, and have probably never had to work a day in their lives
I bet she has dreadlocks as well. And got them done when she was travelling on mummy and daddy's money.
oh, it's just, just so much more spiritual .. and seeing it just made me realise how intelligent i am'
Really, how many people have a 2nd or 3rd home? It'd be interesting to see her say that in the middle of the departures terminal.
I dislike those protesters alot! FIENDS
I am delighted that these protesters are getting excoriated. As has been pointed out, it's not universal suffrage or something important - it's Henry and Henrietta thinking that it would be a good wheeze to cause some trouble, safe in the knowledge that there will be little cost to them involved.
It does irk me that when the miners were protesting about something of real worth, the police were allowed to beat their heads in with gusto, yet when it is the sons and daughters of the wealthy, they have to be treated with kid gloves.
how do you protest to 'raise awareness about climate change' without pissing people off and with still getting noticed though?
i'm refusing to have any opinion on this out of sheer fence-sitting stubbornness but the general attitude towards protesting in 2008 seems to be "yeah, they can protest about something as long as it doesn't affect me and doesn't require that i pay any attention to it". and well, that kind of protest would probably be a pretty ineffective protest, wouldn't it?
mind you, if X million people protesting against the iraq war did no good in 2005, why should anything do any good now? </jaded>
While I support a moratorium on airport expansion and no new runways we've got to recognise that people want to go on holiday etc. So let's start with the banning of air travel within each continent, but at the same time massively expand high speed rail travel, subsidised to the point where it becomes cheaper than a budget airline flight. This needn't be costly and heavily polluting (plus all the aerodynamic issues encountered at such high speeds) 180mph plus lines and trains, but instead an upgrading of all mainlines in each country to 125mph standard (see how even the "intercity express" trains are so slow in former eastern bloc countries) with sleeper carriages too and decent catering facilities, that way for example you could get from Paris to Dehli in 60 hours. This avoids the stress of airport baggage check in and so on, as well as taking you directly into the heart of a city. While this is inevitably more time consuming than flying the way round it is to give people two or three extra days of leave a year to compensate. With long haul flights I'd support one standard class of accommodation (more seats per plane that way). Also taking note of long haul flights being used a lot by businesses here are two suggestions; one is encourage businesses to rely on video conferencing and the other is if you take a long haul flight you must stay at least two weeks before your return flight. On top of that possibly consider rationing long haul flights to one return flight per person, per year and make it so you can't sell on your ration to anyone else.
I honestly reckon if these climate change campaigners came up with demands like tgat instead of all this focus on self sacrfice and individual lifestyle choices then they would garner a lot more support than at present.
Even though I am generally sympathetic to the overall thrust of their argument but not their means/strategies, I can only say "You bastards! You vicious, heartless bastards!"
There's a whole branch of social-psyhcological theory dedicated to specifying the best conditions and arguments by which to make people change their minds (and subsequently behaviour). The boiled down (and pretty obvious) version: get their attention, then provide rational, well-thought out arguments (like the ones in this post). Surprising, then, that this rarely happens; you always get some 'durr' soundbites turning up on the news. On the other hand, perhaps news channels just don't relay those arguments.
inidividualism being the prevalent social ideology (for want of better words) of the past 30 years. Consequently people are socially conditioned to accept that we as individuals must enact drastic lifestyle changes (see all this "we cannot go on living like this", "time to return to 1940s attitude" etc) that result in massive self sacrifices that most people simply aren't willing to make. Furthermore in less economically developed countries than our own people simply can't make those sacrifices to living standards. Super taxation on air travel just hits the poorest hardest (the rich can always afford to pay despite their protestations) and simply causes more resentment as it appears the government represents their interests even less so than usual.
As for the news channel comment, it seems to be a combination of some of the more prominent campaigners (but by no means all) saying stupid things (it seems like there's a preponderance of middle class people who give up on some of their "excessses" involved at the forefront of the environmental movement who seem to have no conception of the toughness of low income life at present). Combine this with the effect of marketisation of news services leading to cuts in staff numbers (so less people out there to report what's going on) and something of an agenda by certain editors, propietors and ordinary journalists to portray all climate change campaginers as "eco mentalists", so consequently pick those making the most outlandish comments.
I suppose there is one problem with my suggestions, in that they would not work under the current system of private ownership of pulic transport as the desire to make profits would simply mean that such measures would not get off the ground. Too much potential profit wiped out for the heads of the various transport companies to even consider implementing. That is why a return to public ownership for the rail industry at the very least is needed (if not the aviation industry too). That or subsidise private industry even more, but the problem with that is that it actually works out more expensive to the taxpayer than outright public ownership. Furthermore public ownership would make the possibility of some form of democratic control of industry more likely too.
Also just to clear things up I'm not against protests per se, I juse see little "skirmishes" like this runway blockade as being somewhat counter productive and are very much rooted in an individualist ideology. A change in tactics is needed towards a mass movement marching on the streets, as opposed to small groups just attempting to disrupt things. Although maybe further down the line if such a movement could be built and the level of overall consciousness was raised then perhaps such stunts could have a purpose, but at present all they seem to do is alienate people from the cause.
I guess one problem with little stunts like this is that they immediately set the press sniffing for a disaster/outrage story; reporting it like it's an incidence of terrorism. It sets reporting of the incident off on the wrong foot immediately. As you say, from there it's just the media doing what works/sells: perhaps some overzealous editors putting a spin on it, but mostly just journalists working it through.
She went to a famous private school, was fabulously rich (her grandfather was a Tory peer I believe) - a complete trustifarian.
Whilst I accept that climate change is an important issue, this group is completely awful. I read an interview where they advocated massively raising airfares as a solution to the problem. The journalist sensibly suggested that this would limit air travel to the extremely wealthy, a completely regressive social step. "Yeah, but we're not responsible for the consequences, we just want action".
No, you stupid cunts, if you advocate an action you should be responsible for the consequences. Jumped up fucking twats.
don't go to the poor world, surely? spain = more popular than the gambia as a holiday destination
if you want to protest against a problem in the world, step 1: identify the evil-doers, step 2: figure out how to get the public to agree with your well though-out views.
instead they attacked the public, the travellers, and not the BAA for example,(and instead of "posh" travelers, those who fly ryanair and easyjet). then, as your spokesperson, present to the media someone who only has a vague grasp of reality, and the passenger and flight profiles of stansted.
regardless of which airport, the end result would be sob stories on TV about people missing their dad's funeral, or losing their flight home after months of saving, cue Daily Mail hate campaign and endless jokes about deluded treehuggers whenever the serious topic comes up.
they were probably bolstered by the 'success' of the Thailand airport sit-in. Which itself was really just a case of good timing.
I doubt if one in a thousand of the people who use Stanstead are unaware of environmental issues. A sizeable proportion of them may even be taking carbon offset measures to 'pay' for their journey, but even if not, are doing nothing illegal or unusual.
Yet these jumped up 'protester' scummers think that their own bleeding heart consciences take precedence. The little shits live in a cosseted cloud cuckoo land where mummy and daddy encourage every brain fart from their darlings as though sticking an infants' finger painting to the fridge.
Gassing's too good for them.
another reason why all this self sacrifice will not work, we simply need to take sideways steps like the ones I outlined above. Also break the obsession with everything being run in the interests of private profit which seems to hold back change until it's almost too late. People don't seem to realise that in this interconnected society we live in that decisions made here affect people in other countries.