How Would A 12 Billion Reduction In The...
News1 min ago
"Eco-Warriors" at Stanstead
If the idiots at Stanstead had caused your holiday flight to be cancelled, on a scale of 1 to 10 how painful would you like their torture to be?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Well in the first place on this cold and frosty morning and before they arrested them they should have been thoughly wet in their cage with a water cannon.
If a MP can be arrested under the anti-terrorist act, I wonder if they will be charged under the same act, and if so what punishment should be inflicted upon them?
Why couldn't they divert their energies protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
If a MP can be arrested under the anti-terrorist act, I wonder if they will be charged under the same act, and if so what punishment should be inflicted upon them?
Why couldn't they divert their energies protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In the early 1920s women were campaigning for the vote and they chained themselves to railings, threw themselves under horses, and generally made themselves a pain in the b*m.
They were seen as cranks, but eventually they got the vote and these people are now seen as heroes.
Can you imagine if they took the vote off women today?
20 or 30 years ago people from greenpeace and the the "green" party were campaigning about the envoronment and everyone said they were crackpots.
They were ridiculed in the press, but now the whole world has woken up to the fact that we have a problem with the way we are polluting the earth and issues like climate change, waste management and pollution are seen as major issues.
These early campaigners are now seen as right, raising the profile of pollution like they did.
Maybe in a few years time, when have all realised we cannot keep building more and more airports and longer and longer runways that these people at Stanstead will be seen as right.
They were seen as cranks, but eventually they got the vote and these people are now seen as heroes.
Can you imagine if they took the vote off women today?
20 or 30 years ago people from greenpeace and the the "green" party were campaigning about the envoronment and everyone said they were crackpots.
They were ridiculed in the press, but now the whole world has woken up to the fact that we have a problem with the way we are polluting the earth and issues like climate change, waste management and pollution are seen as major issues.
These early campaigners are now seen as right, raising the profile of pollution like they did.
Maybe in a few years time, when have all realised we cannot keep building more and more airports and longer and longer runways that these people at Stanstead will be seen as right.
This is some of the things women did to get he vote (the suffragetes):
"Suffragettes carried out direct action such as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and on occasions setting off bombs. One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she stepped out in front of the King's horse, Anmer, at the Epsom Derby of 1913. Many of her fellow suffragettes were imprisoned and went on hunger strikes, during which they were restrained and forcibly fed and had reached the height of their campaign by 1912"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
Maybe following your suggestion they should have tortured them as well.
"Suffragettes carried out direct action such as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and on occasions setting off bombs. One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she stepped out in front of the King's horse, Anmer, at the Epsom Derby of 1913. Many of her fellow suffragettes were imprisoned and went on hunger strikes, during which they were restrained and forcibly fed and had reached the height of their campaign by 1912"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
Maybe following your suggestion they should have tortured them as well.
Whilst not endorsing flip-flops position entirely it's wort pointing out there's a huge difference between this and the women's suffrage movement.
In Edwardian Britain Women had no other recourse - they could not vote for a party that would give them the right to representation.
These people do have a vote.
In Edwardian Britain Women had no other recourse - they could not vote for a party that would give them the right to representation.
These people do have a vote.
>These people do have a vote.
For most people that is three main choices:
Labour (who are a bit like the Tories and Lib Dems)
Tories (who are a bit like the Labour and Lib Dems)
Lib Dems (who are a bit like the Tories and Labour)
If i want to get out of the EU which of these 3 parties do I vote for?
If I want to reduce immigration which of these parties do I vote for?
Our democratic choice is between these 3 main parties, all of which are pretty much the same.
For most people that is three main choices:
Labour (who are a bit like the Tories and Lib Dems)
Tories (who are a bit like the Labour and Lib Dems)
Lib Dems (who are a bit like the Tories and Labour)
If i want to get out of the EU which of these 3 parties do I vote for?
If I want to reduce immigration which of these parties do I vote for?
Our democratic choice is between these 3 main parties, all of which are pretty much the same.
VHG � Whilst I agree with some of your statements, I vehemently disagree with the protesters in this instance. The reason? They were attempting to �highlight� how CO2 damages the environment by contributing to Global Warming.
Unfortunately, they are utterly misguided. CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming. That is a fact. If it were true that CO2 increases the temperature of the earth, we should have seen a sustained and continued increase in global temperature since 1998, as CO2 emissions have continued to increase during this time. However, we do not see that. In fact, there has been no temperature increase since 1998 � even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] admits this fact after analysing temperature records from all over the world.
In addition, none of the IPCC�s computer models predicted that temperature would stop rising. I suspect most people haven�t read the IPCC�s report at all. If they�ve read anything, they�ve probably read the �summary for policy makers�. This so called summary is nothing of the sort. It overtly contradicts some of the findings in the report and makes absolute statements such as �global warming is happening� and �CO2 is causing global warming� when the report makes it clear that the jury is still well and truly out on both these counts.
Unfortunately, they are utterly misguided. CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming. That is a fact. If it were true that CO2 increases the temperature of the earth, we should have seen a sustained and continued increase in global temperature since 1998, as CO2 emissions have continued to increase during this time. However, we do not see that. In fact, there has been no temperature increase since 1998 � even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] admits this fact after analysing temperature records from all over the world.
In addition, none of the IPCC�s computer models predicted that temperature would stop rising. I suspect most people haven�t read the IPCC�s report at all. If they�ve read anything, they�ve probably read the �summary for policy makers�. This so called summary is nothing of the sort. It overtly contradicts some of the findings in the report and makes absolute statements such as �global warming is happening� and �CO2 is causing global warming� when the report makes it clear that the jury is still well and truly out on both these counts.
Continued�
In addition, the computer models are hopelessly inaccurate. They make, what the IPCC call �projections� about future climate. How does the IPCC define �projections�? They state in �Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis� on page 317,
�A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
No even the IPCC trust their own models. That should tell you something about the politics of global warming. The advocates of global warming follow the rules laid out below�
1. Never discuss the science.
2. Never discuss the science.
3. Keep saying, �Global Warming / Climate Change is happening and it man�s fault�
4. Keep saying, �The science is settled� [despite the fact that science is never settled].
5. Keep saying, �The time for debate is over.�
6. If anyone disagrees with you, never discuss the science. Attack the man / woman personally.
7. Go to number 1.
In addition, the computer models are hopelessly inaccurate. They make, what the IPCC call �projections� about future climate. How does the IPCC define �projections�? They state in �Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis� on page 317,
�A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
No even the IPCC trust their own models. That should tell you something about the politics of global warming. The advocates of global warming follow the rules laid out below�
1. Never discuss the science.
2. Never discuss the science.
3. Keep saying, �Global Warming / Climate Change is happening and it man�s fault�
4. Keep saying, �The science is settled� [despite the fact that science is never settled].
5. Keep saying, �The time for debate is over.�
6. If anyone disagrees with you, never discuss the science. Attack the man / woman personally.
7. Go to number 1.
Good postings VHG. I agree with you entirely. They may be misguided - I don't really know the facts about global warming - however they have made themselves heard. They will be prosecuted and they probably are aware of that too and are prepared. They have not put people's life in danger AOG. No plane would have attempted take off with people on the runway. They have caused delays, inconvenient and annoying but hardly life threatening.
Whilst you do make a valid point VHG, I can�t help thinking that the Suffragettes might be turning in their graves at the thought of being compared to a handful of eco-protesters calling themselves Plane Stupid.
I would prefer to see them protesting against the constantly rising fares on public transport which is forcing people to go back to their cars as it is potentially cheaper and more reliable. My bus fare has risen twice � by 23% - since 1st January 2008.
I would prefer to see them protesting against the constantly rising fares on public transport which is forcing people to go back to their cars as it is potentially cheaper and more reliable. My bus fare has risen twice � by 23% - since 1st January 2008.
-- answer removed --
'Plane Stupid' are a well organised group who have shown the government to be two-faced when its comes to global warming. We either cut back our emissions or we dont, no user group should be exempt. Usually there is an alternative using rail. The main user at Stansted is Ryanair and he seems to have a lot of clout as without him the airport would be underused even with 1 runway.
They were seen as cranks, but eventually they got the vote and these people are now seen as heroes.
Nope. The Suffragettes are still seen as cranks. Largely because they weren't just a pain in the bum - they also damaged peoples property and attempted violence against public figures.
The Suffragists and reformers within the Liberal party are largely considered the 'heroes' of that movement
Nope. The Suffragettes are still seen as cranks. Largely because they weren't just a pain in the bum - they also damaged peoples property and attempted violence against public figures.
The Suffragists and reformers within the Liberal party are largely considered the 'heroes' of that movement
Kromovaracun, I was taught at school that the suffragette movement had nothing to do with winning the vote for women - it was granted purely because women had done such a good job in the Great War.
All sounds like establishment hooey to me, I'm afraid; the establishment will never admit that the extremists might have been right all along, and will do all it can retrospectively to credit 'responsible', 'moderate' campaigners whose campaigns would in fact have got nowhere without the extremists putting it on the agenda.
All sounds like establishment hooey to me, I'm afraid; the establishment will never admit that the extremists might have been right all along, and will do all it can retrospectively to credit 'responsible', 'moderate' campaigners whose campaigns would in fact have got nowhere without the extremists putting it on the agenda.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.