6 ms·

Another side of this story: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-rebellion-road-blocks-stop-ambulances-getting-12256369/ https://metro.co

by mixtur2021 3y ago

Another side of this story: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-rebellion-road-blocks-stop-ambulances-getting-12256369/ https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-... This feels like a partisan hatchet job. There is a balance. Freedom of protest does not give the right to perpetually block roads and motorways putting protestors and others into danger. This organisation had no issue with governments imposing multi year lockdowns without any form of criticism.

_joel 3y ago
There was already a degree of legistlation in place to tackle this and when did we have "multi-year" lockdowns. Come on now.
- darepublic 3y ago
  Referring to COVID I think
  - _joel 3y ago
    Sure, they weren't 'multi-year' though they cumulatively were months, not years. It's disengenous to say multi-year and reeks of another agenda imho.
- happymellon 3y ago
  Are you referring to the couple of months in 2020? Because we didn't really have any sort of lock down in the UK, the Tories just said the police would need to informally enforce a non-rule. The met responded that they were not going to enforce anything that wasn't an actual rule. There were words said and a couple of high profile incidents which shows how little any sort of lockdown happened. I know I drove around the country still and no one ever asked why, and all my neighbours had garden parties with social gathers still happening.
  - hanoz 3y ago
    You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".
    - ojhughes 3y ago
      Driving around the country at the time was ignoring guidance rather breaking any law
      - _joel 3y ago
        Especially if you go to get your eyes tested at Barnard castle
      - hanoz 3y ago
        No, it was law. Immoral law which deserved to be broken, but that is no consolation to the millions who suffered greatly by going along with it. To hear one of the most shameful periods in our legal history being brushed off as couple of months of half hearted barely observed lockdown is pretty disturbing.
        happymellon 3y ago
        Please point to the law. Because you are just making stuff up now.
        hanoz 3y ago
        The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200... Restrictions on movement 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
      - happymellon 3y ago
- nailer 3y ago
  2020-21.
gadders 3y ago
[flagged]
- arcticbull 3y ago
  "15 minute cities" -- you mean, walkable, normal cities? Lord have mercy, I have a case of the vapors. What a silly thing to be upset about, and definitely the weirdest manufactured outrage of 2023. I for one hope they force us to walk at least 45 minutes or take a car!
  - 1827163 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Cities are responsible for directing the flow of traffic. Traffic sucks and cars suck. I really don't see the problem with dissuading their use. Again, manufactured outrage. Having everything around you is great, it's why people live in cities. There's no dystopian undertone to having a grocery store and other amenities around the corner and easily accessible, lol. Why would you intentionally want things further away from you? There's plenty of real things to be angry about.
      - 1827163 3y ago
        Absolutely, the idea of having everything within 15 minutes walking distance is great. But actively restricting people's movements in this way is not, at least to me. Public highways are really the people's property. In a democratic society if the majority of the public dislike the roadblocks, the local government should remove them. I think it's valid for the public to get upset about attempts by the government to micromanage their lives in this way. Such micromanagement may sound trivial, but the underlying motivation for doing so is not. As it is an attempt to exercise power and control over the population. Often it starts with very trivial matters, and later expands to greater ones, as we have seen over the years. And it's not just this particular issue, it's many other things which are restricting our freedoms in general, all together. Which are increasing the level of outrage against the state. That's good because at least the public is pushing back against it. There may be a point where people can't take it anymore and might start protesting en masse. I'm really waiting for that to happen, we might find ourselves getting our civil liberties back eventually.

_joel 3y ago

There was already a degree of legistlation in place to tackle this and when did we have "multi-year" lockdowns. Come on now.

darepublic 3y ago
Referring to COVID I think
- _joel 3y ago
  Sure, they weren't 'multi-year' though they cumulatively were months, not years. It's disengenous to say multi-year and reeks of another agenda imho.
happymellon 3y ago
Are you referring to the couple of months in 2020? Because we didn't really have any sort of lock down in the UK, the Tories just said the police would need to informally enforce a non-rule. The met responded that they were not going to enforce anything that wasn't an actual rule. There were words said and a couple of high profile incidents which shows how little any sort of lockdown happened. I know I drove around the country still and no one ever asked why, and all my neighbours had garden parties with social gathers still happening.
- hanoz 3y ago
  You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".
  - ojhughes 3y ago
    Driving around the country at the time was ignoring guidance rather breaking any law
    - _joel 3y ago
      Especially if you go to get your eyes tested at Barnard castle
    - hanoz 3y ago
      No, it was law. Immoral law which deserved to be broken, but that is no consolation to the millions who suffered greatly by going along with it. To hear one of the most shameful periods in our legal history being brushed off as couple of months of half hearted barely observed lockdown is pretty disturbing.
      - happymellon 3y ago
        Please point to the law. Because you are just making stuff up now.
        hanoz 3y ago
        The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200... Restrictions on movement 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
    - happymellon 3y ago
nailer 3y ago
2020-21.

gadders 3y ago

[flagged]

arcticbull 3y ago
"15 minute cities" -- you mean, walkable, normal cities? Lord have mercy, I have a case of the vapors. What a silly thing to be upset about, and definitely the weirdest manufactured outrage of 2023. I for one hope they force us to walk at least 45 minutes or take a car!
- 1827163 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Cities are responsible for directing the flow of traffic. Traffic sucks and cars suck. I really don't see the problem with dissuading their use. Again, manufactured outrage. Having everything around you is great, it's why people live in cities. There's no dystopian undertone to having a grocery store and other amenities around the corner and easily accessible, lol. Why would you intentionally want things further away from you? There's plenty of real things to be angry about.
    - 1827163 3y ago
      Absolutely, the idea of having everything within 15 minutes walking distance is great. But actively restricting people's movements in this way is not, at least to me. Public highways are really the people's property. In a democratic society if the majority of the public dislike the roadblocks, the local government should remove them. I think it's valid for the public to get upset about attempts by the government to micromanage their lives in this way. Such micromanagement may sound trivial, but the underlying motivation for doing so is not. As it is an attempt to exercise power and control over the population. Often it starts with very trivial matters, and later expands to greater ones, as we have seen over the years. And it's not just this particular issue, it's many other things which are restricting our freedoms in general, all together. Which are increasing the level of outrage against the state. That's good because at least the public is pushing back against it. There may be a point where people can't take it anymore and might start protesting en masse. I'm really waiting for that to happen, we might find ourselves getting our civil liberties back eventually.