Protesting

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 6193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Protesting

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:44 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:24 pm
The vandalism of fossil fuel activists is non-stop. This isn't the only church they've damaged.
Not to mention the wind farm they've destroyed.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:12 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:10 pm
Just Stop Oil have sprayed paint over Murdoch’s HQ, pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and an Aston Martin Bentley showroom.

I can get behind that. I00% should do again.
The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

[...]

It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-study

So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.

IvanV
After Pie
Posts: 1632
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Protesting

Post by IvanV » Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:58 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:24 pm
The vandalism of fossil fuel activists is non-stop. This isn't the only church they've damaged.
In this case the "fossil fuel activists" in question were "the fossil fuel industry". Reference in that wiki article. Is that what you mean? Or is there something I'm missing?

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 6193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Protesting

Post by dyqik » Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:34 am

IvanV wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:58 pm
lpm wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:24 pm
The vandalism of fossil fuel activists is non-stop. This isn't the only church they've damaged.
In this case the "fossil fuel activists" in question were "the fossil fuel industry". Reference in that wiki article. Is that what you mean? Or is there something I'm missing?
That is what they mean. Fossil fuel companies get to vandalise the entire planet, but if one lefty blocks one road...

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2897
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Protesting

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:39 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:12 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:10 pm
Just Stop Oil have sprayed paint over Murdoch’s HQ, pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and an Aston Martin Bentley showroom.

I can get behind that. I00% should do again.
The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

[...]

It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-study

So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.
Absolutely. And the polar opposite of blocking electric rail in one of the very poorest parts of London.

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Sciolus » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:12 pm
The top 1% of earners in the UK are responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year as the bottom 10% over more than two decades, new data has shown.

[...]

It would take 26 years for a low earner to produce as much carbon dioxide as the richest do in a year, according to Autonomy’s analysis of income and greenhouse gas data from 1998 to 2018, which found that people earning £170,000 or more in 2018 in the UK were responsible for greenhouse gas emissions far greater than the 30% of people earning £21,500 or less in the same year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nomy-study

So cut them down. Its an easy win. Target the first class flights, Bentleys and heated swimming pools. Get a big reduction in emissions without bothering almost all of the electorate.
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:38 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
That’s a non-sequitur
A bit churlish

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdf

So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.

But that is irrelevant anyway.

My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7397
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Protesting

Post by shpalman » Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdf

So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.

But that is irrelevant anyway.

My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 am
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:46 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm


A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdf

So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.

But that is irrelevant anyway.

My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services. There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?
Exactly that. Reducing the fuel efficiency per passenger mile.
A bit churlish

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 4434
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Protesting

Post by Gfamily » Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am
shpalman wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 am
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 6193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Protesting

Post by dyqik » Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:28 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdf

So redistributing income from the top 10% wouldn't mean that emissions remained stable.
Done right, redistributing income from the top 10% in Western countries would probably mean more money becoming available to lower classes to invest in e.g. more efficient heating systems, or more efficient cars. Right now, a lot of people can't afford to invest in efficiency improvements that would save them money in the long term, and so end up paying more and polluting more at the same time.

Where the uptake of energy efficient systems is limited by the capital available to the majority of the population, consumption could well drop as a result of redistribution. Particularly if it's done smartly, with tax take going to insulation and other housing stock efficiency subsides, public transit, electric cars and renewable subsidies, etc.

Sure, some redistribution could result in more cheap flights being taken, but there are plenty of levers available to work on those.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5263
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by lpm » Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am
shpalman wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:12 am
Why does flying in a first class seat cost more carbon than flying in economy? The extra space taken up by first class which more economy passengers could fit into?
Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2897
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Protesting

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:56 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am


Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.
I'm afraid the concept of making a journey needlessly unpleasant by means of a large quantity of stinging social insects is quite an old one, pioneered by a certain Dr. S. Maturin during the Napoleonic wars.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:58 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:56 pm
lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.
I'm afraid the concept of making a journey needlessly unpleasant by means of a large quantity of stinging social insects is quite an old one, pioneered by a certain Dr. S. Maturin during the Napoleonic wars.
You don’t know how old lpm is
A bit churlish

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 6193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Protesting

Post by dyqik » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:00 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:44 am


Yes, the most carbon efficient form of air travel is where there are as few flights as possible. So each aircraft would be packed with as many people as they can fit in.
Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.
I'd accept the odd wasp sting in exchange for not having the seat pocket in front of me pressed into my knees just below the kneecap.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:03 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:00 pm
lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:42 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:00 pm

Making air travel as unpleasant as possible will also help - so offering to make a flight to NY for a long weekend a nice pampered experience is a baaad thing (YMMV).
My Wasp Flights solution is getting traction. Going to be discussed at Sharm El Sheikh.
I'd accept the odd wasp sting in exchange for not having the seat pocket in front of me pressed into my knees just below the kneecap.
Making row spacing adequate is obviously related, but both getting rid of first class and increasing spacing for the cattle could be possible even while increasing passenger numbers. Indeed, one helps the other.
A bit churlish

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:12 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:21 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:42 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:04 pm
You would expect that carbon emissions would be roughly proportional to the amount of money you spend, and to the amount of wealth you have. While some stuff is more carbon-intense than others, the variation will tend to average out on a per-person basis, especially compared with the huge disparities in wealth we see around the world.
A consequence of that is that reducing inequality by redistributing wealth will have little effect on emissions - we need to impoverish everyone to reduce them.
It looks as if the relationship between income and co2 emissions isn't linear - see page 26: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 215-en.pdf
That has only 12 pages. But it does have this interesting point in its summary:
The emissions of the top 10 percent richest people globally are 49 percent of the global total .
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribut ... on_pyramid we find that the top 10% own 85% of the world's wealth, so it seems that greater inequality leads to lower emissions. If it was linear we would find that the top 10% had emissions of 85%, so it must be sub-linear. Consequently, to reduce emissions we should campaign for ever more inequality.
My point wasn't to redistribute income but to reallocate consumption. The top 1% can keep their income, wealth and consumption, so long as they spend it on much less carbon intensive products and services.
That makes no sense. You are saying that they can keep their consumption as long as they give it up. You seem to think that for a rich person the goal is merely to spend money rather than to get what they desire.
There are plenty of ways to spend money without driving a Bentley or flying first class to New York for a long weekend.
If you make someone rich enough they might fly to New York every weekend, but however rich you make them they cannot do that more than 53 times a year. Redistribute a billionaire's wealth among 1000 people, and they can all fly to New York once a year.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Protesting

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:15 am

dyqik wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:28 pm
Right now, a lot of people can't afford to invest in efficiency improvements that would save them money in the long term, and so end up paying more and polluting more at the same time.
There is a very widely used mechanism whereby a person can spend money now to save over the long term - get a loan. Even if such loans are not commercially available, there's nothing stopping them being provided from public funds. If the money does truly get saved in the longer term, that would be a way of reducing the national debt (by charging enough interest on the loan such that the borrower and the lender share the profits).

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Protesting

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 am

The exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.

Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.

The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.

No delays to commercial flights were reported.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:20 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 am
The exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.

Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.

The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.

No delays to commercial flights were reported.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/
Military police? WtF?

I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
A bit churlish

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Protesting

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:25 am

Grumble wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:20 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 am
The exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:
AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental activists wearing white overalls stormed an area holding private jets at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and stopped aircraft from leaving for hours by sitting in front of their wheels on Saturday.

Military police moved in and were seen taking dozens of the protesters away in buses. More than 100 activists were arrested, national broadcaster NOS reported.

The protest was part of a day of demonstrations in and around the air hub organised by Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion in the build-up to the COP27 climate talks in Egypt.

No delays to commercial flights were reported.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/
Military police? WtF?

I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
Yes, seems to be these guys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marechaussee who have some civilian functions, including border control and other airport things.

I'm pretty sure they could use military police in the UK too if they called it terrorism.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3771
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Protesting

Post by Grumble » Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:30 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:25 am
Grumble wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:20 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:11 am
The exact protest everybody says climate activists should do has happened, in case you missed it:



https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/ac ... 022-11-05/
Military police? WtF?

I thought the military police jurisdiction was military sites and personnel, not civilians in civilian areas. Maybe it’s different in the Netherlands and I have no real knowledge of this to start with. Don’t recall hearing about military police arresting civilians before though. Or are they military police in the sense of gendarmes vs policiers in France?
Yes, seems to be these guys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marechaussee who have some civilian functions, including border control and other airport things.

I'm pretty sure they could use military police in the UK too if they called it terrorism.
Yeah, so basically the Dutch gendarmes. I’m sure there’s a reason police forces around Europe seem to follow the pattern of civilian and paramilitary divisions, but a bit off topic for this thread.
A bit churlish

Post Reply