"Protesting"? What's your view.

[cee-dee]

We've all seen "Protesters" at many sites of construction and civil engineering over time and the latest to hit the news is at the drilling ste in Sussex.

The "protesters" have also forced their way in to a company HQ in Staffordshire and some "protesters" have glued themselves to the company's PR HQ in London.

"Protesting" or "demonstrating" is one thing but when it comes to a mob taking what they call "Direct Action", I think it's gone beyond a simple "protest"?

It seems to me that the same old "activists" want to whip up "support" from any source they can and are hell-bent on causing trouble having gone beyond "civil disobedence"?

It's rare that such "protests" actually achieve anything other than wasting a great deal of police time costing a fortune in so doing and causing much inconvenience along the way.

A Public Order Act notice doesn't seem very effective because after being served with such a notice, the "protesters" see it as a reason to resist any attempts by the police to either move them on or shift them and think it's all jolly good fun to be arrested knowing they'll probably be either completely "let off" or get a small fine.

Mostly, these "protests" are against legitimate and legal operations which have been either authorised by local planning, by Government Licence or even an Act of Parliament.

Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of whatever the "protesters" are "protesting" about, what's your view about such things and what would you like done if such a "protest" hit your neck of the woods?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

CD, I believe you are wrong on that.  We live in a society of vested interests.  Those at the "top" organise things to their own advantage.  The only thing standing in their way is people willing to stand up and be counted.  Without those people, life for you and I would likely be very different.

It was not discussion that got women the vote.  It was that the option not to give it to them became more threatening to the continuation of the minority rule than giving it to them.  It is that grind to get concessions that has made society a fairer place for the majority.  Don't dismiss those women or what they stood for or what they achieved.  They suffered greatly and the personal cost to indiividuals was huge.

Some change may come about through debate, but only if the interests of those in control are served.  Of course, in an ideal world, all ideas would be considered on merit and assessed with the greater good in mind.  Reality is far from this though.

Comparing these things to threads here is a bit ingenuous.  Of course, on a discussion forum, putting forward points is all that is needed, cos it matters not one jot if people agree or not.  It is but an exercise in passing the time.  No-one's livelihood is on the line, no change is being sought, no person has the ability to influence real life by their comments. 

Protesting in the real world is not soley about "battering the opposition into submission", though that may be the outcome.  It is about having a voice and getting it heard.  To oppose the right to protest is to side unreservedly with the strong, whatever their policies or ideas.  That happens a lot around the world ... to humanity's collective shame.

[lhasa.two]

I agree with you caution and I was there! 

In this country anyway, and probably most western countries, the protest movements have changed over the years from mostly being relatively peaceful but in large number - think Countryside Alliance and the anti Iraq war - the latter nearly a million people marching. A fat lot of good it did though!  

Young people have grown up in our 'democracy' and can see that very often peaceful protest doesn't get their cause much attention so they resort to some troublemaking. I don't agree with that in principle but I can understand why that happens when the government or whoever they are protesting towards, doesn't react to their concerns by hearing them out. In this case the longer term results of fracking is NOT a known science. People have a right to be concerned about it because it's all gone on quietly behind the scenes. IMO there needs to be much more information available to the general public before the countryside is decimated by these fracking companies...

Nowadays I think it's a bit naive to think we are living in a democracy particularly if we question or for a moment step out of line... see Alan Rushbridger's (Guardian Editior) article about the Miranda situation. He has a point!

 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

[lhasa.two]

caution, my post ^ was based on your post before CD's... as I thought you meant the protests in the late 60's/early 70's... 

Those protests did result in the  equal sex act  (1970) and equal pay acts (1975) and subsequent additions to the acts.

It's also had a huge influence on our culture over the last 40+ years and I'm mighty pleased I have lived through those times. If only all women around the world had such equality... 

[cee-dee]

Talk of "Vested interests" running the country smacks of Conspiracy theorists.

It wasn't direct action that got women the vote, it all came about by discussion and debate.

You don't seriously think that those in Government of the day thought "Oh dear, women are demonstrating, some are chaining themselves to railings and that silly woman got trampled by the Kings horse, we'd better give then the vote"?????

[lhasa.two]

Yes CD but you forget that the women chaining themselves to the railings brought the attention to the media of the day so that in itself went some way to start the debate. There hasn't been anywhere near enough "debate" about fracking... 

Thank goodness for Caroline Lucas... she tried to get a debate going in Parliament before the recess but all the vested interests had gone on holiday!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

It isn't consipiracy theory, CD.  Those who have money are able to influence those in power.  It happens everywhere to some extent.  How do you think the banking collapse happened?  Do you think bankers were sitting there saying "We must act in the interests of society as a whole"?  Of course not.  They had the power to do as they wished in the furtherance of their own ends.  And so they did.

It is true, there was discussion and debate about whether women should get the vote.  Deals were made, and then reneged on.  Your words in quotes suggest you know little of the extent of the action they were taking ... and the personal consequences it had for individuals.  Some lost their lives, some were disabled for ever by the force feeding that took place while they were in prison to prevent them dying and being seen as martyrs.   It became politically expedient to give them the vote, and so it happened.  But how did it reach the stage where it was politically expedient?  Because some individual women banded together and fought for what they believed in.

What about the people killed in Tiananmen Square?  Are you saying they were just wasting police time?   The topic of protesting is too huge to be dismissed in a couple of sentences on the basis that occasionally things get out of hand and laws are broken.

Ilama, good points about the Equal Pay Act.

[cee-dee]

I think what you're missing is the HOW the "protesting" is done.

There's no need for most of the things the "protesters" do.

You forget about the old saying about "Jaw-Jaw not War-War"?

Try (much harder) to keep to the idea of the thread, it's about protesting, not about specifics like fracking, womens suffrage or Tianamen Square.

[lhasa.two]

Don't be so patronising CD.  Your OP mentions the current protests relating to fracking. Describing it  and the problems around it go some way to explain why some people do not always protest peacefully.

If previous Parliaments and this Parliament had Jaw Jawed more, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in in Middle East.

Jaw jaw obviously hasn't and isn't working...  which goes back to "vested interest" I suspect.

[lhasa.two]

Here you go CD, a nice peaceful protest at London Zoo to save the Sumatran tiger...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hundreds-of-streakers-run-through-london-zoo-to-highlight-the-...

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Try (much harder) to keep to the idea of the thread, it's about protesting, not about specifics ...

---

But any protest is about something specific, which is why you cannot lump them all together and just dismiss protesting per se.

We are lucky.  We live in a place where protesting is generally not a life-and-death issue.  That tends to make us complacent about it.  But where it is the case that many, many people are willing to forfeit their lives in order to bring about change, it is not good enough to just dismiss them and say they should have "talked".  If talking worked, they would not need to die for their cause.

[spawnjohnuk]

In this year in this country obeying (ha) the made up laws to suit the maker of laws should be protested to the very end by the whole rational thinking nation.

Its not because .....errrr beats me, unless  your all in it for yourselves i guess.

Protesters against wrong ,rule imo and long may they live and hopefully win all protests

[cee-dee]

Now we see the cost to the taxpayer of this "protest":-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23796432

Had the police not been there what would have happened? Criminal damage?

Reading that report we see that "hundreds of activists had been trained in direct action".

Direct action? What's that mean? It means more than just "civil disobedience" doesn't it?

Protesting and registering your disagreement with something is fine but when an unruly mob descends hell-bent on causing a breach of the Peace, trouble and damage is not on and is just the same as "taking the Law in to your own hands."

[cee-dee]

Further to all that we see this charming bit of wisdom:-

Ewa Jasiewicz, from No Dash For Gas, said  "We don't think that taxpayers' money should be used to protect a private corporation that is not acting in the public interest."

Who is she to decide what is and isn't in the Public Interest?

Taken to the extremes she's advocating, how would you feel if you'd gone through all the planning procedures and in spite of some opposition, you'd been granted permission to (for example) build a smart three-car garage and attached workshop with storage space above, built in brickwork to match your house and with a pitched roof. When you start building, a gang of thugs start blocking your access and threatening heck-knows-what if you don't stop building?

What's the difference between that and what's happening down at Balcombe?

[spawnjohnuk]

protesting and how are two different subjects

as for who is she to decide,the same applies to those who say its fine go ahead ,who are they to decide,?

If 300 people say no and 4 say yes whos right ?

[cee-dee]

Who is right are those who advocate a Lawful intent.

[joe_bloggs*]

I,m afraid the direct action route is the way its going,the government won't listen,their local MP won't listen,and it's pointless complaining to the local council as the government has removed the powers of local authorities (and with it local communities) to approve fracking, or to investigate reports of pollution or contamination related to fracking in their area.

So all democratic ways to oppose this have been tried and failed,as regards to people turning up to oppose someones home extension-why would they? as long as it did not affect the health and well being of the community they have no need to.

Also i think this protest is very significant with it being in tory heartland,not the sort of area you would think of in relation to direct action,this will send a message to the rest of the country just how important the need to protest is. Balcombe people are showing the way to reclaim our power to influence the decisions which affect our daily lives

Maybe we should look on direct protest as the "Big society" in action,surely Dave couldn't object to that,could he?

[cee-dee]

Balcombe people are not showing anything, it's outsiders making all the running.

In their own local "consultation", 77% of the people didn't bother to vote.

If a rival group calling themselves "Stop the protesters" arrived with twice the number of activists advocating "direct action" against the present group, that would make them and their actions right and quite OK would it?

[joe_bloggs*]

All you seem to put forward are hypothetical situations not based on any likely event,as i and others have said how else can they protest? these are real events affecting real people and likely their children and grandchildren,not some made up unlikely scenario plucked out of thin air,

That "poll" was a year ago before many of the dangers of fracking were known to the general public,I bet if they held a poll this week a majority would be against it,but as the council say,they have no choice in the matter,it is taken out of local democratic decision making and forced upon them from central goverment diktat,

You'll find a lot more groups springing up around the country were cuadrilla have applied to drill,and obviously out of this we will inventively see a lot more direct action taking place,that is real democracy in action,not some unelected prime minister overriding local concerns.

Cuadrilla, the firm given approval to operate in Balcombe, is Chaired by Lord Browne.  This same Lord Brown is a sitting peer in the House of Lords, and a member of the Cabinet Office of the UK Government.  He was appointed to the Cabinet Office by Francis Maude….who is the MP for Balcombe.

The government has nailed its colours to the mast and demonstrates once and for all that it is no friend of the country or its people, only of profit,both corporate and personal,this country is being sold off at an alarming rate all for short term monetary gain,and good luck to those at Balcombe and the other groups now setting up,at least they will make a stand and not roll over like the rest of the sheep

[cee-dee]

The issue in Balcombe isn't about fracking. They're not going to be fracking there. That's all been introduced to whip up opposition.

There have been oil wells operating on the UK mainland for many, many years and before the advent of the anti-everything brigade, there has been exploratory drilling, prospecting just like in Balcombe for many, many years and in fact as much as 35 years ago, a drill rig was prospecting only 4 miles from where I was living at the time.

If the thread MUST be hi-jacked to encompass fracking, I think if the public were made fully aware of what fracking actually is, they'd be much more inclined to dismiss the anti-everything brigade for what they are, vociferous anarchists who'd like to ensure that mob-rule was the order of the day.

[joe_bloggs*]

Trouble is the "anti-everything brigade" brought about a lot of change for the betterment of working people,all through direct action,Change which you no doubt benefited from and were happy to accept,if you think that change can be brought about through the ballot box alone, you are being very naive indeed

While the right to protest is lauded as a part of our great democracy, effective protest is condemned,one of the few ways people have left to exercise power is to disrupt the veneer of good order and business as usual,only then will politicians listen

I,ll finish with a good quote from Tony Benn:

“I have always tried to be optimistic,” he says, “because optimism is, I believe, the fuel of progress.

“Cynicism is encouraged by people who don’t want anything to happen or to ever change.

“If you can persuade people that whoever they vote for doesn’t matter then that discourages them from making progress. You have to keep hope alive.

“And I have drawn comfort from looking at historical examples of how we have got rid of slavery, how women got the vote and how it was all achieved when people ­organised and campaigned.

“When you do that you go through various stages. First you are ignored. Then they say you’re mad, then dangerous and then finally you win and then you can’t find anyone at the top who doesn’t claim to have thought of it in the first place.

“That’s how change happens. That’s why however bleak things might appear, I do still believe if people organise and if the streets were full of people demanding different policies then something would happen.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-benn-im-kindly-im-2125128