Spot the terrorist
Dear environmental campaigners,
Apparently you are feeling hard done by this morning after you were labelled as ‘extremists’ and listed alongside al-Qaeda inspired terrorists and dissident Irish republican groups by the Government. The new guidance on extremism, produced by the Ministry of Justice, was sent to probation staff in charge of writing court reports or supervising a range of activists. It says: “The United Kingdom like many other countries faces a continuing threat from extremists who believe they can advance their aims by committing acts of terrorism.” Well, I say good on ‘em, because it’s about time the Government stopped pussy-footing around some of your behaviour.
The advice itself lists “environmental extremists” alongside far-right activists, dissident Irish republicans, loyalist paramilitaries and al Qaeda-inspired extremists as among groups “currently categorised as extremist [that] may include those who have committed serious crime in pursuit of an ideology or cause”. The internal guidance from the Ministry of Justice’s National Offender Management Service defines domestic extremism as any “unlawful action that is part of a protest or campaign”, and “environmental extremists” are described as committing “criminal activity motivated by the broad philosophy and social movement centred on a concern for conservation and improvement of the natural environment”. You, however, reject the extremist label, claiming that your protests are peaceful and non-violent. Ben Stewart, of Greenpeace, said: “The climate movement has never once sought to further its political aims by using violence [my emphasis - Ed.] which is something that Jack Straw, foreign secretary during the invasion of Iraq, can most certainly not claim. His Ministry of Justice would be better occupied reminding itself that peaceful direct action has a long and noble history in this country.”
Mr Stewart, allow me to shatter your illusion of non-violence once and for all with some short snippets of stories from the last couple of years:
27th February 2008: Protesters scaled the roof of Parliament in a major security breach and threatened further direct action against government plans to expand London’s Heathrow airport. Environmental protesters from the “Plane Stupid” group scaled the Houses of Parliament to mark the end of a public consultation period on a third runway and sixth terminal at what is already the world’s busiest international airport. The demonstration followed another serious breach on Monday when Greenpeace activists penetrated Heathrow’s own security to climb on an aircraft and wrap a banner around its tail plane.
September 2008: Six Greenpeace protestors were, incredibly, acquitted of criminal damage for their demonstration at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent. They defaced and damaged private property in full view of the media.
13th October 2008: The police were forced to close the main public entrace to Parliament because 600 environmental protestors who disagree with airport expansion gathered and tried to force their way in. The police had to arrest six of your buddies and shut the public out of Parliament. Apparently, the Climate Rush group were attempting to emulate the Suffragette movement to storm Parliament 100 years ago.
8th December 2008: Dozens of flights at Stansted airport were delayed or cancelled after more than 50 protesters occupied a secure area near the runway. Climate action group Plane Stupid said it started the protest by breaching security. The runway was closed for about two hours. Airport operator BAA said the protest was “unlawful”. The police made 57 arrests, and a spokeswoman for Essex Police said 50 people had been accused of aggravated trespass, three of attempting to gain access to a restricted area, and four of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance. Ch Supt Ian Gruneberg told BBC News the demonstrators, who were chained together, were “committing a criminal act” and would be dealt with by the courts. The BBC said protesters had brought concrete blocks and 6ft-high security fencing with them and erected a “stockade” about 50 metres (164 feet) from the runway. They then chained themselves to the fencing.
2nd April 2009: During the G20 protests, hordes of men covering their faces to protect their identity charged the police time and time again, the RBS and HSBC buildings were smashed up and police officers were goaded by protestors (who also took it upon themselves to strike the police with large metal poles).
6th May 2009: Anti-capitalist protesters brought Bank Holiday chaos to Brighton. Mounted police were forced to retreat as masked demonstrators among a 2,000-strong crowd hurled bricks and bottles. Several missiles were seen to hit police officers and their horses. Three officers suffered minor injuries and a man in his twenties was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. The arrest was filmed by about a dozen people, some of whom shouted abuse at police relating to the death of Ian Tomlinson, who was pushed to the ground by police during the G20 protests in London last month. Demonstrators descended on the Royal Bank of Scotland, EDO, the weapons components manufacturer that has a factory in Brighton, and the French arms group Thales. Red paint was thrown at buildings and police vans, while outside McDonald’s a gas canister was discharged as riot police pushed back protesters. Visitors to the Brighton Festival were forced to run for cover and traffic ground to a halt as protesters surged through the main streets. The protest was apparently organised by the campaign group ‘Smash EDO’.
11th October 2009: More than 20 environmental campaigners scaled the roof of the Palace of Westminster in a protest over climate change, while another 20 were being held by police. After four and three quarter hours on the roof, some of them climbed down one by one using a ladder and safety harness and were arrested for trespassing on a ‘protected site’.
19th October 2009: More than 1,000 demonstrators converged on the coal-powered Ratcliffe-on-Soar site in Nottinghamshire under the banner ‘the Great Climate Swoop’, including supporters of the Camp for Climate Action, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush. The police set up a protest zone where they could gather in a peaceful way and exercise their democratic right to protest, but instead clashes broke out with the police because – surprise surprise – some of them thought it would be a great idea to tear up perimeter fencing around the power station and try to enter the facility. Several protestors then complained that police dogs had bitten them as they tried to gain access to the power station. By mid-morning on the Sunday, 52 people had been arrested and your friends had made further attempts to pull down fences and enter the site on the Sunday, even after having the dogs set on them on Saturday.
13th December 2009: During the Copenhagen climate summit, cobble stones were thrown through the windows of the former stock exchange building and foreign office buildings in the city. Suspected troublemakers were herded into a closed-off street, made to sit down and then tied up with plastic cuffs. They were then bused to a detention centre set up for the climate conference. Police said four cars were set on fire during the evening. One policeman was hurt by a stone and a Swedish man injured by a firework. “You don’t have to use that kind of violence to be heard,” said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister presiding at the United Nations talks.
So Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, how peaceful and non-violent are your environmental campaigner buddies now? Hmmm? How does causing disruption, causing damage to building and vehicles, ignoring peaceful protests and attacking the police fit with your blinkered view of these morons? The fact is that there are a considerable number of environmental campaigners who go out looking for trouble and invariably find it, and their actions can only be described as ‘extremist’. As far as “committing serious crime in pursuit of an ideology or cause” and “unlawful action that is part of a protest or campaign” go, there is no argument about it.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Since a court has ruled that belief in AGW can constitute a ‘faith’ and thus attract religious protection, should it therefore be a surprise that the most zealous converts want to use force to impose their views on the rest of us?
Seriously, from a security point of view, ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.
Dear LFAT.
The violence was caused by:
1. Over-reaction by a brutal and uncontrolled police response to peaceful demonstration.
2. Agents-provocateurs stirring up trouble so that brutal and uncontrolled police had justification to react against peaceful demonstrators.
3. Elements of far-right fascist/extremist libertarian/anarchist/climate change denier/ scum groups seeking to stir up trouble to give brutal etc.
4. Repressive demonstration control planning by unduly authoritarian security forces provoking justifiable outrage amongst peaceful demonstrators against inhuman treatment thereby justifying brutal etc.
Any other excuses gratefully received.
Global warming caused the violence by making people, erm, warmer and thus angrier. Or something!
Will the ordinary person complaining about a wind farm also become an extremist.
Shaun, some of the legal rulings – particularly on the Kingsnorth protestors – were an utter disgrace and I hope we don’t see any repetition of that nonsense.
GOM, while the police are not blameless in every situation, the vast majority of these incidents were sparked by the protestors – Brighton, Kingsnorth, Stansted etc
BS, if they try to put bombs underneath it or deface / damage it then probably yes.
In furtherance of their cause terrorists were involved in:-
Disrupting political meetings, often in large numbers, spitting at and assaulting officials.
Two arrested for attempting to rush inside 10 Downing Street; one person jumped on the PM’s car.
Breach of the Peace, insulting words and behaviour in the Commons lobby. Ten arrested.
Mass rally and violent struggle outside Parliament, march broken up by mounted police. Fifty-four arrested.
Five thousand police try to control 60,000 in Parliamnet Square. Thirty-seven arrested; 10 to hospital.
Slogans in indelible ink on walls of St. Stephen’s Hall in House of Commons.
Melee of 3,000 people in Caxton Hall. Many assaults on police; 122 arrested. Windows broken at the Privy Council offices, Treasury and Home office.
Bricks thrown and windows broken in other government offices. Frequent acts of arson. Art works damaged.
Group took axes onto the roof of a building to remove slates which were thrown at police, injuring several, and at the PM’s car.
Post boxes set alight by paraffin-soaked rags.
Telegraph wires cut.
Damage to golf courses.
Home-made bombs exploded in Theatre Royal.
Etc., etc., etc.
Oh, and one woman threw herself under a horse at the Derby.
Just saying.
Was the horse alright?
Always thought an extremist was a dense fog
“The United Kingdom like many other countries faces a continuing threat from extremists who believe they can advance their aims by committing acts of terrorism.”
Hmmm. That, for me, marks the government as extremists. Certainly, I feel terrorised by them.
I didnt think it was possible to have a Left Wing extremist. I thought only the evil Right Wing could be extreme….or at least that’s how the gummint and meeja seem to play it.
BS, *groan*.
Jeremy, I think we all feel terrorised by Brown, and our bank accounts certainly do.
John, the recent emphasis spouted by police chiefs about the dangers of right-wing extremism is pretty ridiculous, given the isolated number of cases relative to the clear and present dangers from religious extremists. All very political.
Just remember that when they try to group protestors in with terrorists, the real aim is to find more authoritarian methods of stifling dissent.
We have too many anti terror laws in the UK and they are invariably misused already. There are plenty of campaigns which are ‘green’ in nature which cause nuisance or could be construed as direct action. They are not terrorist in nature because they do not rely on fear, they rely on obstruction, inconvenience and visibility, (and sometimes unlawful damage to property, which should be dealt with under the appropriate laws).
We already are prohibited from prostesting in and around Parliament. When a woman was arrested for reading out the names of the dead outside Downing Street we all thought it Orwellian and nasty. Now we see yet another group labelled ‘Terrorist’.
It seems that all government has to do is declare a group a terrorist group and they can effectively be legislated into silence. Who is next?
@LFAT – Dear LFAT. I realise only too well that the police are not blameless. Drawing on my experiences in Belfast in the ’70’s, there are some things that the Police are doing now which actually invite disorder especially in the Met. The concept of “Kettleing” is an enormous error, and some individual policemen show a lack of morale, training and commonsense. In crowd control situations, security forces are invariably out- numbered and ultimately depend on the good sense and self discipline of the crowd to stay in control. Remembering that the IQ of a crowd is defined as the lowest IQ of the individuals divided by the number in the crowd, and it becomes obvious that crowd control is a fine art. Policemen are trained to work singly or in small groups and are expected to show a degree of initiative in the normal course of duty. Crowd control requires large numbers of “white hats” team skills including absolute reliance on each other and the command and control element and intensive training. When a crowd turns into a mob, often with no warning it is a frightening experience. If confidence is missing due to lack of training and confidence, then frightfulness will ensue.
Exactly what definition of violence are we using here? I know some people (wrongly) think that property damage is violence, but I’ve never before encountered anyone who thought that climbing a ladder or sitting on tarmac was violence.
When you don’t understand the terms you’re using, you sort of lose a bit of credibility.
Your first four examples of environmental protest, although clearly criminal and disruptive, were peaceful by most generally accepted definition of the term.
Your next two examples, where you cite violence, were not environmental protests, and so whatever happened, they can hardly support your thesis.
Your next example, of the Greenpeace protest on the roof of parliament, was again peaceful.
Furthermore, you appear to have made basic errors in reporting what happened in terms of numbers of people involved, how long the protest went on for, and the sequence of events, as even a cursory glance at news reports from the time demonstrates. (See, for example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/6299385/Greenpeace-protesters-climb-onto-roof-of-Houses-of-Parliament.html ).
In only your last two examples do you try and link environmental protest with violence.
Perhaps you have a case to make. I personally doubt it. But when your piece displays such basic errors in argument, logic and research, why would anyone suppose that you are a credible commentator on this issue?
I think the police’s new label of “domestic extremist” is interesting. There is no definition of what constitutes “domestic extremism”, so in effect, it is an extension of ASBOs to the dissenting classes – i.e. if you disagree with us, you are by definition, a “domestic extremist”.
Grotesque. As was Harman, this morning, defending her gummint’s record on dragging us all down to the lowest common denominator.
Tony E, fair point, your broader concerns about cracking down on certain groups are indeed troubling.
GOM, I don’t disagree that the police are making mistakes along the way, but in their defence they are constantly faced with new and different situations – making forward-planning a bit of a nightmare.
Gubulgaria, of course property damage is violence. Is setting fire to a car, smashing up buildings and breaking windows ‘non-violent’? Honestly, get a grip.
Christian, the errors are yours, I’m afraid. The G20 protest and Brighton protest were well attended by climate change protestors, as any basic check of the media reports will tell you. Your further suggestion that attacking the Kingsnorth power station and literally trying to break down the doors of Parliament were peaceful shows what an unbelievably blinkered view you have on this issue. Like Gubulgaria, your attempt to dodge the issue is rather weak. May I remind both of you that Ben Stewart said “the climate movement has never once sought to further its political aims by using violence”.
Jeremy, Harman was indeed poor – as we have come to expect whenever the PM misses / avoids PMQs.
The horse, Anmer,was fine.
The jockey was knocked unconscious but recovered.
The difference in the *quality* of the case is obviously immaterial to the climate fundamentalist True Believers. It was a demonstrable and incontrovertible FACT that women were rendered 2nd class subjects by being denied the vote. It is an extremely controversial THEORY that says a few bald monkeys burning some fuel has and is driving the entirety of our changing climate.
“Your first four examples of environmental protest, although clearly criminal and disruptive, were peaceful by most generally accepted definition of the term.”
This statement beggars belief. Since when has the use of physical force for criminal purposes been defined as “non-violent”? You’re using exactly the same argument as did Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin in the first decades of the 20th century. “Our cause is Just, therefore whatever we do is right. History is on our side”. It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.
@GOM – you’re quite wrong. The difference is the dictators you mention were trying to justify violence (shooting people, beating people, blowing people up, that sort of thing), whereas climbing on a roof, painting a chimney, wrapping a banner around a tailfin, erecting a fence etc. are not violence. And bear in mind, these are LFAT’s best examples of the scariest, bloodiest, most violent violemce the environmental movement has committed.
I appreciate that tories are very much outraged by any threat to law and order, but if you can’t make convioncing arguments about that, then go home and study. This is not violence.
@Gubulgaria – That does rather ignore the violence directed against policemen and conveniently redefines physical force (as in ‘they forced their way past police into buildings’ or ‘they broke in and applied force to’ objects they disapproved of – Kingsnorth) as non-violence. To imply that violence can only be committed against a person is to betray the neo-luddism that drives a lot of Green ideology.
@Shaun
So would you put demolition workers, lumberjacks, decorators and chefs (you can’t make an omlette…) in the same category as soldiers – people committing violent acts with legal sanction?
Or are you saying that an act becomes violence when it is made illegal?
‘they forced their way past police into buildings’ sounds as though violence may have been committed against the police, who are regarded as persons under the law, but then that quote doesn’t come from the article above, so I’m not sure what story you got it from.
I am saying that we legislate specifically against UNSANCTIONED acts of violence. Demo workers and the rest have legal authority to do their jobs. Politically motivated Greens breaking into premises or assaulting people/destroying objects do not.
That’s called the ‘rule of law’ but, I’m sure, like most theocrats, you only recognise a law that accords with your divinely revealed scripture.
“violence may have been committed against the police, who are regarded as persons under the law, but then that quote doesn’t come from the article above, so I’m not sure what story you got it from.”
Also, I hate to break it to you, but you are still a human being if you take a job that certain green-totalitarians don’t approve of, such as a Police officer. Policemen and women are still humans and have all the rights thereof.
It is interesting, though, to note how quickly the non-person meme has spread amongst the Green Fascist movement and how seemingly unaware they are of how ugly it appears to educated people, or how it betrays their desire to reduce the human population quite dramatically.
“…how seemingly unaware they are of how ugly it appears to educated people…”
How could they be? Most of them have grown up under the UK’s ‘educational’ system and so have no concept for what educated people might think…
@shaun
So you do consider decorators and chefs to be violent occupations, but legalised violence? Or have you spotted the indefensibility of your position?
And you have no source for your ‘they forced their way..’ quote, which I suppose, you made up due to a lack of any real examples?
I particularly like the way you interpret a joke about the police as revealing an urge to genocide, whilst your own comment –
“ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.”
presumably is a sign of a gentle and forgiving nature.
@JuliaM
Are you quoting someone with your ‘educational’ system? Or indicating your lack of faith in its educational properties? If it’s the latter, then you mean ‘education’ system. Much in the same manner as ‘defence spending’ rather than ‘defensive spending’.
Come on Shaun, the only people committing any violence in the incidents described above were the police, and the only person advocating violence on this thread is you.
Rightwingers love violence so much, they want a monopoly.
Some of your other, completely contradictory comments make you sond like some sort of peace-nik, which is one step away from the sort of dirty hippy who deserves to be shot dead on a runway.
Where do the animal activists fit into this?
@jameshigham
They don’t, really. Animal rights and animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports or the Donkey Sanctuary are not environmentalists. Nor are the ALF or Stop Huntingdon.
Having said that, there are probably activists who are members of animal rights groups and environmental groups, but then there are policemen who are members of the BNP, and that doesn’t prove that the police are a nazi organisation.
Gubulgaria. So what would you say if someone broke your door down (assuming you live in a house or flat). Would you not say that was violent? I would. It is pretty obvious which side of the fence you sit on. So if say someone you went to school with was a police officer was seriously injured in riots caused by your environmentalists mates? Ok hypothetical situation probably because you probably didnt mix with kids who were inclined at that age to join the police or the armed forces.
So there are police who are members of the BNP? Are the BNP not a legitimate legal party who people can vote for? Wasnt Nick Griffin attacked physically by members of the laughingly called Anti-facist League? Or was it the Socialist Workers? Do you find it acceptable that Nick Griffin was attacked?
You notice on this site you are being allowed your opinion by ‘right-wingers’ you completely detest. Yet if one of us posted on a ‘left-wing/marxist’ site, can you imagine the abuse we would get?
@Gubulgaria. You have a conveniently narrow definition of “violence”. In fact, any act which seeks to deter a person from going about his lawful activities can be construed as violent. in the case of the three gentlemen I mentioned, Mussolini developed a system of silencing opponents by both threat or actual mental and physical violence. One of his inventions was to organise “peaceful” demonstrations, which strangely always seemed to degenerate into violence at a selected target of the blackshirts. The authorities were always to blame. Just like Caxton Hall, in fact. The similarity between the outrages perpetrated by the authoritarian extremist parties in the early 20th Century and those perpetrated by your peaceful protesters are all too obvious. If you don’t wish to be labelled as an extremist, you would be studying their methods so as to avoid similarities. I suspect that you have studied the methods, as part of the plan to “Raise Public Awareness” but possibly were unaware from whence they came. Or maybe you are, but in a fit of Hegelian dialectic, decided that the ends justified the means. After all, your struggle is a righteous struggle, isn’t it?
There was an Italian writer named Giovanni Guareschi, who wrote a series of books, and numerous newspaper articles, about the struggle between the Communists and the Democrats in Italy in the 1950’s. He lists every one of your little tricks and verbal protestations of innocence. What you say and do is nothing new – it’s all been done before by your ideological ancestors.
@thespecialone
Funnily enough, I met a policeman at the G20 protests who I went to school with. Obviously he wasn’t ’seriously injured’, because no police were seriously injured at the G20, just a lot of peaceful protestors and one newspaper seller. The policeman in question was bullied by everyone at my school, including everyone in the lower years. Of course he’s not necessarily representative of the Met in general, but as you brought it up…
Yes, there are police who are members of the BNP (was that a question? there are so many in your post I’m not sure whether you really want me to answer them all).
Are the BNP a legitimate political party? Hmm, tricky one. Not entirely sure but, really, is being a legitimate nazi anything to aspire to?
Apparently the police aren’t allowed to be members due to some sort of rule about the police serving the whole community, rather than just the whites, so they can’t even be legitimate nazis. Where’s the justice, eh?
How do I feel about Griffin being attacked? If you’re referring to the eggs that were thrown at him, I was amused. If there were other attacks which I haven’t heard about, well, I’d have to know a bit more before commenting.
Thank you very much for allowing me my opinion, and for keeping the abuse to an acceptable level.
@ Gubulgaria
Sigh.
“So you do consider decorators and chefs to be violent occupations, but legalised violence? Or have you spotted the indefensibility of your position?”
Demolition is a violent act and that is what we were discussing, not decorators. However, if you decorate my house without my consent, you are a vandal. And if you cook my food without my consent you are a thief and/or a vandal. It is the consent, the permission, the *authorisation* which permits these acts.
“And you have no source for your ‘they forced their way..’ quote, which I suppose, you made up due to a lack of any real examples?”
Yeah, I couldn’t actually be arsed to dig any up as I was working at the time. Now though…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302351.htm
or
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6817751.ece
or
http://www.theenvironmentalnews.co.uk/2009/10/29/activists-storm-power-station/
where ’storm’ is defined as:
“Definitions of storm on the Web:
* ramp: behave violently, as if in state of a great anger
* take by force; “Storm the fort”
Which certainly suggests violence…
“I particularly like the way you interpret a joke about the police as revealing an urge to genocide, whilst your own comment –
“ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.”
presumably is a sign of a gentle and forgiving nature.”
No, you chose to define violence against a police officer as not being violence and you weren’t joking. My comment was also not a joke, predicated upon an understanding of the terrorist threat we face from other theocratic fascists who like to blow up aircraft for reasons other than their carbon footprint.
[...] @Gubulgaria – That does rather ignore the violence directed against policemen and conveniently redefines [...]
@GrumpyOldMan
Ah yes. Don Camillo. Wonderful. Thank you for reminding me – my parents had these books, and I read and enjoyed them at a bookwormishly early age, not, of course, understanding all the subtexts!
Spot on, your observation on how the ideologues operate.
@GOM
So that’s why you’re losing this argument so spectacularly – I’ve been using tricks and verbal protestations! For shame! If it wasn’t for you meddling kids….
I like this –
“Any act which seeks to deter a person from going about his lawful activities can be construed as violent.”
I get the bus to work, which is still lawful, so far as I’m aware. So, presumably, every car advert I pass on the way is an act of violence upon my person?
I know a few anarcho-syndicalists who would agree, but I’m suprised to hear it from a tory. My prejudices are really being exposed here.
Listen chaps, violence is hurting people. Or, at a bit of a stretch, threatening to hurt people. Let’s not debase the language to try to score a political point. Climbing a ladder isn’t violence, sitting on a runway isn’t violence, erecting a fence isn’t violence, painting a wall isn’t violence and, if it was, then violence would be a mixed bag of activities many of which having no connection to hurting people whatsoever, which would rather mean that violence wasn’t really all that bad.
You don’t think that, do you?
@Shaun Pilkington –
Sigh.
I wrote –
‘they forced their way past police into buildings’ sounds as though violence may have been committed against the police, who are regarded as persons under the law, but then that quote doesn’t come from the article above, so I’m not sure what story you got it from.
You wrote –
It is interesting, though, to note how quickly the non-person meme has spread amongst the Green Fascist movement and how seemingly unaware they are of how ugly it appears to educated people, or how it betrays their desire to reduce the human population quite dramatically.
I wrote –
I particularly like the way you interpret a joke about the police as revealing an urge to genocide, whilst your own comment –
“ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.”
presumably is a sign of a gentle and forgiving nature.
You wrote –
No, you chose to define violence against a police officer as not being violence and you weren’t joking.
Do you see where you went wrong there? Not every example of your going wrong, of course, but the two big glaring mistakes in that last sentence?
We’re going to need to both use common usage if we’re going to get anywhere.
Does anyone remember the Shell petrol stations in Germany that Greenpeace activists bombed during the Brent Spar campaigns?
From Wiki:
“4 June 1995 – 20 June 1995: Protesters in Germany threaten to damage 200 Shell service stations. 50 are subsequently damaged, two fire-bombed and one raked with bullets.”
Or perhaps the subsequent climb down when Greenpeace admitted that they were wrong and Shell right and sinking it off Cornwall to form the basis of a new deep water reef was the environmentally best solution. Shame it was too late and Shell had already had to cut it up and cause plenty of leakage of toxic materials as a result of Greenpeace’s campaign.
Dear gubulgaria. Thank you for conceding defeat so gracelessly. By totally refusing to seriously engage with the nub, introducing a point I never made and reducing it to absurdity, you’ve quite obviously given up. I trust someone somewhere will be impressed – but not on this blog. @Gubulgaria -
Wow, I see while I went to bed, this argument continued. All I have to add is that when Green supporters are quibbling over what is and is not violence, who is and is not a person worthy of having their rights respected, that it shows up the kind of Bolshevik thinking that is the engine of their neo-maxist ideology.