Climate protesters dig up Cambridge college's lawn

[jany123]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  

 

". . . but were they in breach of a law?"

 

Does that question even need to be asked?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Maybe I'm reading you wrong but it sure sounds like you're saying that if no law on the books has been violated and the university doesn't bother calling the bobbies then it's O.K. for them to tear up the lawn.

There ya go.... now what do you reckon?

Does that question need to be asked?

 

but as to your question, no it’s not alright, but without a complaint, they might be gardeners and It’s not up to the police to determine who is and who isn’t committing trespass.

 

laws within a democracy must be different from yours.

[from the home of CC]

should have lit up Buckingham palace, would of generated more press..

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, jany123 said:

<snip>

 

what law was broken?

should it apply? 

Should it be reformed?

should there be a more specific law?

all good questions imo... given the damage caused, seemingly with impunity. 

 

<snip>

Maybe assemble a task force of half a dozen bureaucrats, fund them with £20,000, and give them 6 months to write a report.

 

A bit overkill?

 

Let's look at it from a practical perspective . . . it's your lawn.  I don't think those are the questions that would come to your mind.

 

It's a simple affair.  People acting destructively to make their point and justifying their destructive behaviour to themselves.

 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, jany123 said:

 

There ya go.... now what do you reckon?

Does that question need to be asked?

 

but as to your question, no it’s not alright, but without a complaint, they might be gardeners and It’s not up to the police to determine who is and who isn’t committing trespass.

 

laws within a democracy must be different from yours.

". . . they might be gardeners . . . "

 

Common sense seems to be in such short supply these days.  Mistaken for gardeners.  And if it were your lawn I'm sure you'd go ask the missus if she hired someone to desecrate the yard.  LOL

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, jany123 said:

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Must be reassuring for the likes of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and George Soros to know the millions they lavish on climate change activism is being well spent.

Just to entertain that thought.

 

these “activists” deliberately set out to use the causation of public mischief, to get the public to talk about them (and their cause). In this they have been 100% successful... look here... we’re talking about it. 

 

Given then, that the enterprise was 100% successful, any funders of the enterprise should be happy with the result, right?

Of course they'd be happy.  They're not the ones going to jail.  They only put up the dosh.

 

Now there's a thought to entertain.  If you fund hooligans shouldn't you be responsible for their actions as well?

[jany123]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . they might be gardeners . . . "

 

Common sense seems to be in such short supply these days.  Mistaken for gardeners.  And if it were your lawn I'm sure you'd go ask the missus if she hired someone to desecrate the yard.  LOL

There ya go, your getting the hang of it. I would indeed ask the missus if she hired someone to do some landscaping, but only because I would be managing my property and be paying.

 

now... the police are neither managing the property in question, nor paying to have damages repaired (an afternoons work of resoodding), that would be an issue for trinity college, not the police, who would be waiting to be asked for assistance in the matter.

 

common sense... lol.... you don’t like my analogy... try this;

a nightclub fight should be dealt with by

a/ police on their own initiative

b/ nightclub security under a code of conduct, detailing when police should be called

[jany123]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course they'd be happy.  They're not the ones going to jail.  They only put up the dosh.

 

Now there's a thought to entertain.  If you fund hooligans shouldn't you be responsible for their actions as well?

I believe you should.... but do you? Because if so, we can talk about your country taking more responsibility for the failures it has funded and abandoned. 

 

I see you’ve provided an adequate answer to the question you yourself posed about bezo et al.... crikey... if you thought it through, prior to posting, you’d have nothing to post.

[nobodysfriend]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Oh, and it should take the opportunity to replace the lawn with flowers. Spring is just around the corner after all."

So , just bring the flowers and plant them ... At least that quite stupid ' digging up ' action would be good for something than ...

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, jany123 said:

There ya go, your getting the hang of it. I would indeed ask the missus if she hired someone to do some landscaping, but only because I would be managing my property and be paying.

 

now... the police are neither managing the property in question, nor paying to have damages repaired (an afternoons work of resoodding), that would be an issue for trinity college, not the police, who would be waiting to be asked for assistance in the matter.

 

common sense... lol.... you don’t like my analogy... try this;

a nightclub fight should be dealt with by

a/ police on their own initiative

b/ nightclub security under a code of conduct, detailing when police should be called

In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying you would be clueless as to whether they were gardeners or hooligans?  You would have no way of discerning?  That's the common sense I'm talking about.

 

Personally, I don't think your analogy fits so I'll decline an answer.

[DerThaiPin]

It's nothing than lawn. Needs to be ventriculated from time to time. ???? Come on, more of that, please. 

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I believe you should.... but do you? Because if so, we can talk about your country taking more responsibility for the failures it has funded and abandoned. 

 

I see you’ve provided an adequate answer to the question you yourself posed about bezo et al.... crikey... if you thought it through, prior to posting, you’d have nothing to post.

I do believe they should be held accountable.  If you fund a bank robbery, or any other crime, you're liable.

 

As to my country I think you're assuming.  I'm European.

[jany123]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Maybe assemble a task force of half a dozen bureaucrats, fund them with £20,000, and give them 6 months to write a report.

 

A bit overkill?

 

Yes that’s overkill.... is that how your country does it?

no wonder y’all need to drain the swamp.

 

in mine, the police have their own law review department with a permanent staff (a friend spent three years detailed there) reviewing laws in a continual effort to make/keep them relevant to society and its changing needs. 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

Yes that’s overkill.... is that how your country does it?

no wonder y’all need to drain the swamp.

 

in mine, the police have their own law review department with a permanent staff (a friend spent three years detailed there) reviewing laws in a continual effort to make/keep them relevant to society and its changing needs. 

The bit about assembling a task force was my way of saying that I think your list of questions is overanalysing the whole affair.  It's a simple situation which needn't be made overly complicated.  You toss 'em out and by force if necessary.

 

Would you mistake these people for gardeners?

 

 

[jany123]

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying you would be clueless as to whether they were gardeners or hooligans?  You would have no way of discerning?  That's the common sense I'm talking about.

 

Personally, I don't think your analogy fits so I'll decline an answer.

Sure... let me correct you again. I would most certainly have a sense of wether they were protestors or gardeners, but without a complaint from the property owner, who is fully aware of what’s happening in their front yard, I would also be fully aware that I would have no right to intervene.... that’s common sense

 

And... so as not to cause anxiety, when making analogies, one does not necessarily need to believe in the validity of the analogy.... just that’s its understandable. If you don’t understand my analogy regarding a private organization being initially responsible for its own security, over that provided by the socialist state, which I thought common sense in nature  then I’m sorry

Edited February 18, 2020 by jany123

[jany123]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

The bit about assembling a task force was my way of saying that I think your list of questions is overanalysing the whole affair.  It's a simple situation which needn't be made overly complicated.  You toss 'em out and by force if necessary.

 

Would you mistake these people for gardeners?

 

 

I would take them to be a group of people, demonstrating on private property with the permission of the land owner... the signs help somewhat

 

if I knew they were not acting with permission, I would wonder why the college permitted them to dig up their lawn. 

 

Tell me what right you think that a police officer would have to interfere, especially with the use of force... lol...Damn democracy... it can be a beech

 

assumedly you would never object to that lefty dem Bloomberg’s support of “stop and frisk”

[wabothai]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The bit about assembling a task force was my way of saying that I think your list of questions is overanalysing the whole affair.  It's a simple situation which needn't be made overly complicated.  You toss 'em out and by force if necessary.

 

Would you mistake these people for gardeners?

 

 

Boars perhaps.

[nahkit]

24 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I would take them to be a group of people, demonstrating on private property with the permission of the land owner... the signs help somewhat

 

if I knew they were not acting with permission, I would wonder why the college permitted them to dig up their lawn. 

 

Tell me what right you think that a police officer would have to interfere, especially with the use of force... lol...Damn democracy... it can be a beech

 

assumedly you would never object to that lefty dem Bloomberg’s support of “stop and frisk”

"The College respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protestors to leave. The College is liaising with the police," a spokeswoman for Trinity said in a statement. "

 

Tell me which part of that statement leads you to believe they had the permission of the owner?

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

Just to entertain that thought.

 

these “activists” deliberately set out to use the causation of public mischief, to get the public to talk about them (and their cause). In this they have been 100% successful... look here... we’re talking about it. 

 

Given then, that the enterprise was 100% successful, any funders of the enterprise should be happy with the result, right?

It's hard to prove, but I suspect their idiotic antics are counter-productive and serve only to antagonise sensible folk who otherwise might see some merit in their cause.

 

 

[Rhys]

.. is that what students learn in school?

 

[twocatsmac]

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

It's hard to prove, but I suspect their idiotic antics are counter-productive and serve only to antagonise sensible folk who otherwise might see some merit in their cause.

 

 

Yep, what he said. 

A bunch of hippy lunatics alienating themselves from joe public.

I think back to them preventing people travelling to work on the tube a few months ago. 

[evadgib]

12 minutes ago, twocatsmac said:

Yep, what he said. 

A bunch of hippy lunatics alienating themselves from joe public.

I think back to them preventing people travelling to work on the tube a few months ago. 

...& getting a good slap when the train reached West Ham ????

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by evadgib

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, evadgib said:

...& getting a good slap when the train reached West Ham ????

 

Sorry, mate.  Wanted to give you 3 emojis . . . a heart, a big thank you and a very hearty laugh.  Those dudes did not consider beforehand that they had to eventually disembark into a very angry crowd.  And I would say it's most likely typical.  They don't have the ability to think their stupid actions through.  Fools.  But they were very entertaining.  Too funny.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tippaporn

[overherebc]

11 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Morons destroying others property. They think they will get sympathy?  chuck them in jail.

After each one gets 3 good hard kicks on the asz.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

I would take them to be a group of people, demonstrating on private property with the permission of the land owner... the signs help somewhat

 

if I knew they were not acting with permission, I would wonder why the college permitted them to dig up their lawn. 

 

Tell me what right you think that a police officer would have to interfere, especially with the use of force... lol...Damn democracy... it can be a beech

 

assumedly you would never object to that lefty dem Bloomberg’s support of “stop and frisk”

I pray to the dear Lord that you never find yourself in a situation of potential imminent bodily harm.  By the time you got done analysing the straits you were in, figuring out if he's truly an attacker, and then giving your attacker the benefit of the doubt you'd be dead.  In worst case scenarios a lack of common sense has led to an untimely and avoidable death for some.

 

Keep on arguing if you like but you're beginning to truly stretch the boundaries of commonsense reasoning.  Much to PC.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tippaporn

[jany123]

1 hour ago, nahkit said:

"The College respects the right to freedom of speech and non-violent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protestors to leave. The College is liaising with the police," a spokeswoman for Trinity said in a statement. "

 

Tell me which part of that statement leads you to believe they had the permission of the owner?

Yes yes... why not...go ahead and attempt to distort what I said. My answer was a direct response to this question posed below... specifically.... note... there is no ancillary information provided to base a judgement on, other than the photo.

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

Would you mistake these people for gardeners?

 

 

Given this, how would you determine that these people are on site without permission?

 

 

[overherebc]

14 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yes yes... why not...go ahead and attempt to distort what I said. My answer was a direct response to this question posed below... specifically.... note... there is no ancillary information provided to base a judgement on, other than the photo.

 

Given this, how would you determine that these people are on site without permission?

 

 

Because maybe someone gave them the benefit of doubt they would just pose for a few photos with their banners etc and they decided just to go down the vandal route.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yes yes... why not...go ahead and attempt to distort what I said. My answer was a direct response to this question posed below... specifically.... note... there is no ancillary information provided to base a judgement on, other than the photo.

 

Given this, how would you determine that these people are on site without permission?

 

Common sense tells me that you might want to ask a question.  Such as, "Hey, W.T.F. are you doing?"  I don't want to sound obtuse but do you think that might uncover whether or not they are there with or without permission.  I don't know if asking a question of them was something that has dawned on you but it would be a good start.

 

Another common sense approach would be to consider the probability of the college extending permission for them to destroy the lawn.  I mean, what do you think the odds are of that probability being viable.

 

You could make further use of your common sense and simply put two and two together.  Given recent history it's not an uncommon occurrence for climate change activists to cause unwarranted and unjustified mayhem.  Given that history is replete with instances (that's 1) and these climate activists are obviously being destructive (that's 1) you put the two together and come up with the correct answer.

 

So many ways for which common sense can be applied.

[jany123]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I pray to the dear Lord that you never find yourself in a situation of potential imminent bodily harm.  By the time you got done analysing the straits you were in and giving your attacker the benefit of the doubt you'd be dead.  In worst case scenarios a lack of common sense has led to an untimely and avoidable death for some.

 

Keep on arguing if you like but you're beginning to truly stretch the boundaries of commonsense reasoning.

Lol... perhaps having found myself in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm, on many occasions, is what compels me to not jump to conclusions, but to question things, thereby protecting me from the aforementioned harm. 

 

But herein the question causing you grief, was something as simple as “what law was broken?”, which gives no one the benefit of the doubt, but rather, establishes boundaries and responsibilities

 

the “analysis”, if you like, was simply an attempt to explain to yourself, that a complaint must be made for police to act.... explanation/ analysis... call it what you will, but fear not for me, because if imminent harm presents itself again, I’ll not have to waste time with simplistic explanation, as I am herein, whilst reacting.

[jany123]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Common sense tells me that you might want to ask a question.  Such as, "Hey, W.T.F. are you doing?"  I don't want to sound obtuse but do you think that might uncover whether or not they are there with or without permission.  I don't know if asking a question of them was something that has dawned on you but it would be a good start.

 

Another common sense approach would be to consider the probability of the college extending permission for them to destroy the lawn.  I mean, what do you think the odds are of that probability being viable.

 

You could make further use of your common sense and simply put two and two together.  Given recent history it's not an uncommon occurrence for climate change activists to cause unwarranted and unjustified mayhem.  Given that history is replete with instances (that's 1) and these climate activists are obviously being destructive (that's 1) you put the two together and come up with the correct answer.

 

So many ways for which common sense can be applied.

Great... so you ask W.t.F?... And are told that they are holding a demonstration. What are you going to do? Presumedly you will ask if it’s a legal or sanctioned demonstration. Right? Surely that’s the next question.

 

anyway... armed with this information, whom do you call? Ghostbusters?....  You don’t have the ability to make a complaint.... so all your doing is making armchair pronouncements to big yourself up. I would kick their ass... blah blah.

 

action... complaint...analyze...react... common sense really. Jumping in guns blazing is oh so Hollywood.... as is vigilant marvel comics... but that appears to be were your at.

Edited February 18, 2020 by jany123

[Basil B]

11 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Morons destroying others property. They think they will get sympathy?  chuck them in jail.

The law on protesting needs radical changes...

 

There should be a rite to protest, protesters should be be able to be seen and heard to a point, but it should stop short of actions that cause a nuisance, inconvenience or announce to the public in general. 

 

Of course if tens of thousands wish to protest that that may well cause inconvenience to some but if organisers had a legal duty to mitigate such protests as too cause minimal inconvenience or announce.