If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Students convicted of "terrorising" the poor little delegates from Shell
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
Six students were prosecuted by their university, Lancaster, for trespassing into a business convention attended by such moral luminaries as Shell and duPont and protesting against their vile business practices.
I suppose it sums up the world we live in perfectly. It's a disgrace to scare the poor diddums who works for duPont, and you should be punished for it. But it's a source of pride to destroy whole villages and countries in the pursuit of profit, and you should get a medal for doing so.
I think every single student of Lancaster should go and genuinely terrorise whichever individual (and its an individual, the University of Lancaster is not something capable of independent thought) is repsonsible for bringing this prosecution.
Six students were prosecuted by their university, Lancaster, for trespassing into a business convention attended by such moral luminaries as Shell and duPont and protesting against their vile business practices.
I suppose it sums up the world we live in perfectly. It's a disgrace to scare the poor diddums who works for duPont, and you should be punished for it. But it's a source of pride to destroy whole villages and countries in the pursuit of profit, and you should get a medal for doing so.
I think every single student of Lancaster should go and genuinely terrorise whichever individual (and its an individual, the University of Lancaster is not something capable of independent thought) is repsonsible for bringing this prosecution.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I am sure this is what it came down to. Whether the university was wrong to prosecute it's students? I don't think so, if indeed intimidation etc. did take place. There's nothing wrong with peaceful protesting, but there is a line you don't cross, because it's makes it personal not political. Like those animal rights people who dug up that woman's remains because her son in law was breeding guinea fowl or something like that.
But we don't know the facts anyway.
Obviously these people are terrified of being held accountable for their actions.
Seriously, is this related to the topic?
George Fox 6: Campus Activism at the Crossroads
Theres a link to a video of the protest - can you point out the "non peaceful" and "cowardly intimidation" moments please?
After that they stood in the reception banging drums, blowing whistles and a klaxon i think, at everyone coming in or out or just milling about. I think for a lot of people in all honesty would have been intimidated.
Please give me the deductive steps you took to reach the conclusion that students were tresspassing on their own campus....... I (and a number of academics as it goes) can't quite get there
As to the 'intimidation', the judge disagreed with you in his summing up:
Scroll down to 3rd comment
Perhaps you think that only ineffectual and inoffensive protest is acceptable - heres a little anecdote from that protest.
A woman delegate screamed at the protestors that this wasn't a peaceful protest.
A protestor responded that if the sufragettes had agreed with her, she would still be chained to the kitchen sink.
She, erm, claimed she found that remark intimidating........
Had the current political climate prevailed a few years ago, many of the present cabinet would have been criminalised.
Finally old chap, if you think a few protesting with a bit of noise is intimidating, what do you think it feels like to be a civilian on the receiving end of a missile from one of those illustrious arms companies?
If I'm wrong about you only supporting "ineffectual and inoffensive protest" - please outline what a "proper protest" is.
Thanks
Just a note but it's not their campus, it's the University's and they have the right to refuse entry to any of their buildings to their students.
Question is, were the students told that they were not allowed entry. If so then they have trespassed, surely.
On the whole though, I don't have a problem with the protestors intentions.
I would like to echo that, I don't have a problem with the protesting, but merely the apparent method of protest. Like I pointed out, none of us really know the whole story, but the reason they were found guilty is not because they were protesting, but because they were protesting in a way that wasn't suitable acording to law etc.
That'll be the Nu-Labour laws which classify political protest as anti-social behaviour will it?
While we murder Iraqis under the pretence of bringing them "freedom and democracy", in our own backyard we see the criminalisation of dissent. And in the words of Monbiot : "As the parliamentary opposition falls apart, the extra-parliamentary one is being closed down with hardly a rumble of protest from the huffers and puffers who insist that civil liberties are Britain's gift to the world. Perhaps they're afraid they'll be arrested."
What you gonna say when they start arresting cyclists for going on a Critical Mass?
"Its scary seeing so many bicycles in one place.........."
Huh?
:eek2:
What, walking up to the people responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and calling them murderers?
Obviously these delegates don't like that, because it interferes with their cosy little justifications they have for acting in such an immoral manner.
Well, we do. It's the version they were convicted on- they walked into a building they weren't allowed to go in and called a load of immoral murderers a load of immoral murderers.
That'd be the law that makes it illegal to protest outside OUR Parliament unless Mein Fuhrer Blair allows us to.
The law is not the barometer of what is acceptable behaviour, it's simply the behaviour we are "allowed" to do. The law and morals don't coincide as often as a lot of people seem to think they do.
The people at Lancaster University who proceeded with this prosecution should be named and shamed.