6 ms·

>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the

>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists. I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from people representing the organisation, that is one thing, but so far I have seen this in the Evening Standard and The Economist, who are both quite capable of pushing a load of utter bullshit dressed up as news.

frereubu 7y ago
Nothing huge, but it did happen: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extinction-rebellion-stages-youth-protest-at-heathrow-airport https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extincti...
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  That example is just the same kind of protest that Heathrow has contended with since being built though. It doesn't say anything about drones.
  - frereubu 7y ago
    The article is unclear - but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The subhead in the Economist article doesn't say anything about drones either.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      What impression do you think someone might receive from that byline should they have not been keeping track? Especially given the headlines from last year pointing the finger at eco-protestors before that random guy got arrested? For added comedy points, there has still been no evidence presented that there ever was a drone in that case, but our press still ran headlines about who the culprits were.
      - dTal 7y ago
        That was Gatwick, not Heathrow.
- Nerada 7y ago
  >The FOIA response said: >in all cases UKAB has no confirmation that a drone has flown close to an aircraft other than the report made by the pilot(s). Similarly, other than from the report of the pilot(s), UKAB has no confirmation that a drone was involved. - https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/uk-airprox-board-reveals-no-proof-of-a-drone-ever-flown-close-to-an-aircraft/ https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/uk-airprox-board-reveals...
msla 7y ago
And maybe I'm taking the news reports too literally, but... certainly the authorities have shotguns. If this becomes disruptive, well, the aircraft are unmanned.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
closetohome 7y ago
I liked the part about how they never actually found a drone at Gatwick, but "experts" (?) say there "probably" was one. I'm curious what they're basing that on, and who's considered an expert on phantom drones (as opposed to Phantom drones).
Lendal 7y ago
I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines? They don't exist. A climate change activist should know this.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Attention getting stunts are an important method of participating in democracy, the primary and most effective form of such participation is influence campaigns, not voting (voting is a behavior influence campaig seek to guide, but an activist by definition seeks to have more effect through influence campaigns than they would have through their own vote.)
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Attention getting stunts are an important method of participating in democracy Yes, but in this case, I think the attention getting stunt may be the article.
- samcday 7y ago
  > If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? You seem to be suggesting that there's a "right" way to participate in democracy. Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here? > Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint ... I'm curious as to what point you're actually trying to make here. Why do people chain themselves to bulldozers to protest mass deforestation? Why do people perform acts of civil disobedience to protest nations fighting wars? Most of the time the people who are involved in those movements are fundamentally morally compromised. For example if you're protesting the Vietnam war and the general US war mongering as an American, you're doing this from a place of extreme privilege - much of which was afforded to you precisely because of the great success the US has in previous wars. > What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines? This is a bad faith interpretation of what the activists are trying to do. They're not protesting commercial air travel (although I'm sure many of them have strong opinions against our frivolous use of it). They're trying to wake people up to the fact that, while somewhat contentious, there's a pretty large (and growing!) consensus that we're utterly trashing our planet and hurtling headlong into catastrophe.

frereubu 7y ago

Nothing huge, but it did happen: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extinction-rebellion-stages-youth-protest-at-heathrow-airport https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/19/extincti...

inflatableDodo 7y ago
That example is just the same kind of protest that Heathrow has contended with since being built though. It doesn't say anything about drones.
- frereubu 7y ago
  The article is unclear - but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The subhead in the Economist article doesn't say anything about drones either.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    What impression do you think someone might receive from that byline should they have not been keeping track? Especially given the headlines from last year pointing the finger at eco-protestors before that random guy got arrested? For added comedy points, there has still been no evidence presented that there ever was a drone in that case, but our press still ran headlines about who the culprits were.
    - dTal 7y ago
      That was Gatwick, not Heathrow.
Nerada 7y ago
>The FOIA response said: >in all cases UKAB has no confirmation that a drone has flown close to an aircraft other than the report made by the pilot(s). Similarly, other than from the report of the pilot(s), UKAB has no confirmation that a drone was involved. - https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/uk-airprox-board-reveals-no-proof-of-a-drone-ever-flown-close-to-an-aircraft/ https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/uk-airprox-board-reveals...

msla 7y ago

And maybe I'm taking the news reports too literally, but... certainly the authorities have shotguns. If this becomes disruptive, well, the aircraft are unmanned.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

closetohome 7y ago

I liked the part about how they never actually found a drone at Gatwick, but "experts" (?) say there "probably" was one. I'm curious what they're basing that on, and who's considered an expert on phantom drones (as opposed to Phantom drones).

Lendal 7y ago

I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines? They don't exist. A climate change activist should know this.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Attention getting stunts are an important method of participating in democracy, the primary and most effective form of such participation is influence campaigns, not voting (voting is a behavior influence campaig seek to guide, but an activist by definition seeks to have more effect through influence campaigns than they would have through their own vote.)
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Attention getting stunts are an important method of participating in democracy Yes, but in this case, I think the attention getting stunt may be the article.
samcday 7y ago
> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? You seem to be suggesting that there's a "right" way to participate in democracy. Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here? > Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint ... I'm curious as to what point you're actually trying to make here. Why do people chain themselves to bulldozers to protest mass deforestation? Why do people perform acts of civil disobedience to protest nations fighting wars? Most of the time the people who are involved in those movements are fundamentally morally compromised. For example if you're protesting the Vietnam war and the general US war mongering as an American, you're doing this from a place of extreme privilege - much of which was afforded to you precisely because of the great success the US has in previous wars. > What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines? This is a bad faith interpretation of what the activists are trying to do. They're not protesting commercial air travel (although I'm sure many of them have strong opinions against our frivolous use of it). They're trying to wake people up to the fact that, while somewhat contentious, there's a pretty large (and growing!) consensus that we're utterly trashing our planet and hurtling headlong into catastrophe.