19 Jul
3:24pm, 19 Jul 2024
22,710 posts
|
rf_fozzy
larkim wrote: rf_fozzy wrote:larkim wrote:I suppose the point is, non-planned incidents on the motorway network every year will have much bigger impacts than the actual impact of the JSO M25 disruptions. And in those incidents, people will be equally or worse affected. And in some of them, there will be fault by the person who causes the incident (e.g. falling asleep at the wheel, badly maintaining the car, crashing whilst driving recklessly).The JSO incidents got national publicity and created (some) public outcry because they were deliberate. But they were, in fact, a relatively minor bit of traffic disruption in the context of the UK as a whole, or indeed in the context of the M25 over a year. This is whatterboutery though. We aren't talking about other disruptions. We are talking about the JSO protest/disruption that shut the M25. Oh, 100%. However, surely it is fair to say that the protest could have been reported in the media as "minor disruption to the M25 took place today", because the data that they've supplied about the impact of it seems to suggest that, when placed within the context of the size and scale of disruptions in the UK to the motorway network. The nature of the reporting of it was at least in part influenced by the media's understanding of how the public at large instinctively (or were led to being) oppose(d) to JSO doing disruptive acts. This is a different argument now. Here you're trying to say that the media framing is what's important. Which is again whatabouttery from your original point. If you want the counter argument to that particular argument. Yes, it might be similar in scale to other motorway closures due to accidents etc (although need to see data to back this up), but the issue would be that if there's an accident - even one caused by reckless or dangerous driving - there's no intent behind that closure. No-one even the most reckless driver goes on the motorway deliberately to crash so badly to cause a motorway closure. Whereas the JSO protest had intent - it's aim was to close roads. And I go back to my original point I said last night. I'm not disagreeing that the sentences are harsh. Nor am I saying that the law as written has the right balance. But if you're going to argue mitigation against those points as has been the focus today, then your arguments need to be robust. And at the moment, I'm not sure they are. |
19 Jul
3:31pm, 19 Jul 2024
32,815 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I saw a lot of kittens too. I’m a dog person, and I think it’s time to end the kitten hegemony.
|
19 Jul
3:32pm, 19 Jul 2024
28,575 posts
|
richmac
Puppies? Hang on |
|
19 Jul
3:33pm, 19 Jul 2024
32,816 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I’m all kittened out. I’d settle for baby rats at the moment.
|
19 Jul
3:34pm, 19 Jul 2024
148 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
HappyG(rrr) wrote: Oh, I'm so rubbish at staying away when I said I should - just want to assure @Yakima Canutt that I don't condone violence or intimidation as a tactic by anyone, against anyone. (As you know, I do think that oil and gas industries need to be helped to wind down extraction and move into renewables etc. And yes, this does mean change and disruption to an industry that is their income and living to many. I get that. And yes, I'm impacted by that less than those living and working in NE Scotland and in those industries. But I'd say and support it if it was me at risk of losing my job too. You may or many not believe that, as another thread poster has said of me above. But violence, no, I never support that. Disruption, persuasion, vocal protest yet. Violence and intimidation, no.) G @HappyG(rrr) I know you are sincere in your views and I respect that. I've said before we both want the same think but have different perceptions on how to get there quickest. I believe we need to challenge and pressure government (UK and Scotland) on the speed at which renewable infrastructure is put in and supported. O&G will fall away simply from to that change. Banning what we currently have which gives us the power to run our society should not, in my view, be the focus. We want to ban UK oil and the prosperity that comes with that, but I never hear us banning the purchase of Norwegian gas? UK Oil companies are investing in our young offshore floating and fixed wind (equinor, Total etc) but if the government can promote grid change, and speed up planning for these ventures, industry will lose interest. We didn't become a nation of mobile phone users by banning landlines. |
|
19 Jul
3:35pm, 19 Jul 2024
32,817 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Annoyingly, baby rats are also called kittens. They are omnipresent.
|
|
19 Jul
3:38pm, 19 Jul 2024
22,712 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Johnny Blaze wrote: Annoyingly, baby rats are also called kittens. They are omnipresent. Do they wear toupees? |
19 Jul
3:39pm, 19 Jul 2024
25,240 posts
|
larkim
I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing! On the sentences; I think they are harsh - but for that I blame the previous government. On whether the incident was significant in absolute terms - I think I've tried to show that it wasn't, and then given some rationale for why I think the impact gets over-stated by the media, and I was surprised that those advocating for the JSO protestors didn't try to hook onto a line which said the impact was relatively minor by manipulating the statistics in the obvious way that I did which would have been lapped up by some sections of the media / social media. On whether there is a massive distinction between whether a planned incident which has real world consequences is different to an unplanned one - I 100% agree there's a different level of culpability. (Accepting that there is a "what about" slant to raising the fact that when accidents on the road system happen which have culpability by some of the protaganists, we don't get lathered up about the SEN child in a taxi which was delayed, whereas we seem to get bothered about it when protestors cause disruption; those two things are not the same BUT perhaps we should take those impacts into account?) |
|
19 Jul
3:39pm, 19 Jul 2024
22,713 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Also I am now envisaging the use of the word omnipresent to mean present everywhere all the time, and so have the image of you in a room full of rats.
|
|
19 Jul
3:42pm, 19 Jul 2024
22,714 posts
|
rf_fozzy
larkim wrote: I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing! This then, might be the issue. If you're using the stats, make your argument clear as I don't think the data you've presented suggests it was "relatively minor" in impact. That doesn't mean it wasn't. I'm just saying that the stats you presented don't prove it. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
