|
U-Know! Forum » grin |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 09, 2009, 14:19
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: A three day train journey to Morrocco? How the hell much would that cost compared to cattle class at easy jet? If you think of three days there and the same back, then that's a week of holiday. So whislt the flight would be cheaper, there'd be all the costs of hotels and whatnnot at the other end to factor in, whereas in the train scneario the journey would *be* the holiday. shanshee_allures wrote: Easy jet is for the proles not the nice well to do middle class folks like she and hers. .It's not, actually. As I've said elsewhere on this site: Firstly, climate change is a global phenomenon, and in global terms - the only way to look at climate change - anyone who flies is not poor. Most people will never fly out of straightforward poverty. And if they did fly, the climate couldn't take it. It is intrinsically unsustainable and inequitable. But even in the UK, cheap flights aren't the poor starting to fly, they're the rich binge-flying. Even on budget airlines, around 80 per cent of trips are by people in the top three social classes, A, B and C1. Most of the growth predicted for 2030 by the government will be the wealthiest 10 per cent flying overseas at weekends. People with second homes abroad take an average of six return flights a year. The richest 20% of the population take half of all flights, while the bottom 28% only take 8%. The aviation industry's own figures show that the poorest 10 per cent of people rarely fly at all. Nor are they likely to fly over the next 30 years, because of the overall cost of trips. The average income of a Stansted user is over £50,000 - and that's a 'budget airport'! Budget airline Ryanair doesn't advertise at all in the Sun, Mirror, News of The World or the Star. It spends the majority of its press-advertising budget on a single publication - The Daily Telegraph. Most people in Britain won't fly at all this year.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 09, 2009, 14:34
|
||
|
pooley wrote: As you say, achieves very little, utter waste of time We've been over this before a bit, but anyway. Many bits of direct action - and indeed entire campaigns - turn out to be a waste of time in themselves. The problem is, when you set out, you can't really tell how possible the changes are. Additionally, there's the fact that future successful campaigns will draw from the lessons of earlier failed ones. You don't only fight if you're certain of winning, you fight because there's things worth fighting for. Would you really only advocate direct action if it had a guarantee of success, no matter what the injustice? No one piece of direct action, in and of itself, forces change. But as part of a number of actions and other measures, it does. For one morning's work by one person, what Deen did had a huge impact. It added to the prominence of aviation and the third runway as controversial topics in the public mind. It had prominent mention of Mandelson's unelected Cabinet status, adding to the illegitimacy of his and Cabinet's decisions in the public mind. Will it stop the third runway or change the make-up of power in itself? No. But, as when you previously pointed out that once action is over things go back to normal and 'nothing has changed. NOTHING', I ask you; which individual restaurant sit-in or bus occupation forced the victory of the Civil Rights movement in America? Which individual letter to an MP or smashed window forced women to get the vote in Britain? Which individual signature on a petition, demo outside a town hall or unpaid bill overthrew the poll tax (and Thatcher with it)? Right now the wind is blowing outside. No one leaf is loud enough to be heard from hear, but when the whole tree's being blown... |
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 09, 2009, 14:37
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: Greenpeace are heroic, always have thought so. But this lot... What's the difference? Greenpeace obstruct meetings, Greenpeace blocade runways, what is it Plane Stupid advocate that Greenpeace don't?
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 09, 2009, 15:37
Mar 09, 2009, 14:48
|
||
|
Ok, but it's the thought of her insisting her family 'go by train' as some sacrificial compromise to save the planet - almost comparing that to ditching your car to take a three hour bus journely to work - that really, really offended me. I don't know why that doesn't offend everybody. And anyway, do you know how long she spent in Morrocco? Which hotel her family used? What they did whilst there? Unless you do I don't think you can compare the cost of it to anything really. The way I read it the three day train journey was just the means of getting there. Now sorry to just be posting about this one lady but she does represent an organisation that will defend its right to blockade airports despite the human inconvenience factor, even if someone's missed their dad's funeral. If taking another (resource gargling), rather opulent means of transportation for your mum's birthday celebrations isn't sending out mixed, contradictory messages then I don't know what is. EDIT: Infact reading over your piece again you've just made that point for me. **Much of the sane response to climate change is about reducing consumption. We're not kidding ourselves that it's going to be as sunny holidaying in Rhyl as Malta. But a lot of the reduction will be positive; relocalising means spending more time near where you live. Who wants to do more commuting?** x
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Mar 09, 2009, 21:44
|
||
|
"If you think of three days there and the same back, then that's a week of holiday. So whislt the flight would be cheaper, there'd be all the costs of hotels and whatnnot at the other end to factor in, whereas in the train scneario the journey would *be* the holiday." I enjoyed doing that when I was a student but why would anyone want to spend 3 days travelling to Morocco by train and back and spend 1 day there when they can get there quicker and cheaper and spend 7 days there? It's a beautiful country and planning ahead, the riads and hotels are very cheap for families. Why waste time cooked up on a train travelling though what mostly equates to modern industrialised cities and landscapes (apart from the journey through south Spain) and paying out more expenses in the process and then only having enough time for a cuppa of mint tea in Tangiers before returning? It's a good journey for some but for most families, I'm sure the expense, travel time and the extra hassle of being mobbed in the ports of ceuta or Tangier for the sake of a few hours does not equate to a 'holiday'. Most families don't give a shit about the carbon footprint to the point of putting that above putting themselves under undue stress and into debt. 8)
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Mar 09, 2009, 23:57
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Which individual letter to an MP or smashed window forced women to get the vote in Britain? Bastards! Be forcing them to have equal pay next.
|
|||
cHARLIE 2607 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 12:05
|
||
|
He is what I would call a *posh twit* ;) |
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 17:04
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: shanshee_allures wrote: **She justified the "direct action" as the best way of bringing about change, claiming she and others were excluded from the democratic process.** I doubt lobbing green custard at anyone achieves much really, but she got him sqaure in the chops anyhow, so entertaining, yes! x As you say, achieves very little, utter waste of time a) It's a visceral reminder to Mandleson (and his ilk) that there are people SO incensed by what he does that they are willing to risk prison just in order to humiliate him. The protester could not have known that she wouldn't have been made an example of. b) It generates publicity for -- and buzz about -- Plane Stupid. For every person like you pooley who pours scorn on such political theatre, there's a 17 year old proto-activist laughing and thinking: "cool". And this is the point, the kind of people who can be spurred on to occupy runways and take part in bigger actions are cheered and galvanised by smaller stunts like this. c) It almost certainly made Mandleson feel threatened and uncomfortable for a short period of time, while also making the protester feel pleased and slightly more empowered. d) It made me chuckle. Quite a lot. So for those 4 reasons (and probably a bunch more) I'd argue it wasn't a waste of time at all. It's only a waste of time if you assume that all progress and achievement must be tangible and easily identified. But sometimes it's about the theatre of the thing. About publicly expressing frustration in a way that makes others take notice. About making people smile. I'm not saying that everyone will smile at the image of Mandleson being covered in green custard. But I suspect many will. Point B - as good a reason as any for me wishing this hadn't happened!! It made you chuckle? Ok thats good - but I wonder, is this really a valid form of protest? or do only agree with it when we agree with the cause? If a pro hunter did the same to an anti hunter would that make you chuckle. quite a lot?
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 17:05
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: As you say, achieves very little, utter waste of time We've been over this before a bit, but anyway. Many bits of direct action - and indeed entire campaigns - turn out to be a waste of time in themselves. The problem is, when you set out, you can't really tell how possible the changes are. Additionally, there's the fact that future successful campaigns will draw from the lessons of earlier failed ones. You don't only fight if you're certain of winning, you fight because there's things worth fighting for. Would you really only advocate direct action if it had a guarantee of success, no matter what the injustice? No one piece of direct action, in and of itself, forces change. But as part of a number of actions and other measures, it does. For one morning's work by one person, what Deen did had a huge impact. It added to the prominence of aviation and the third runway as controversial topics in the public mind. It had prominent mention of Mandelson's unelected Cabinet status, adding to the illegitimacy of his and Cabinet's decisions in the public mind. Will it stop the third runway or change the make-up of power in itself? No. But, as when you previously pointed out that once action is over things go back to normal and 'nothing has changed. NOTHING', I ask you; which individual restaurant sit-in or bus occupation forced the victory of the Civil Rights movement in America? Which individual letter to an MP or smashed window forced women to get the vote in Britain? Which individual signature on a petition, demo outside a town hall or unpaid bill overthrew the poll tax (and Thatcher with it)? Right now the wind is blowing outside. No one leaf is loud enough to be heard from hear, but when the whole tree's being blown... yeah, and back on planet Earth...... |
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 17:08
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: As you say, achieves very little, utter waste of time We've been over this before a bit, but anyway. Many bits of direct action - and indeed entire campaigns - turn out to be a waste of time in themselves. The problem is, when you set out, you can't really tell how possible the changes are. Additionally, there's the fact that future successful campaigns will draw from the lessons of earlier failed ones. You don't only fight if you're certain of winning, you fight because there's things worth fighting for. Would you really only advocate direct action if it had a guarantee of success, no matter what the injustice? No one piece of direct action, in and of itself, forces change. But as part of a number of actions and other measures, it does. For one morning's work by one person, what Deen did had a huge impact. It added to the prominence of aviation and the third runway as controversial topics in the public mind. It had prominent mention of Mandelson's unelected Cabinet status, adding to the illegitimacy of his and Cabinet's decisions in the public mind. Will it stop the third runway or change the make-up of power in itself? No. But, as when you previously pointed out that once action is over things go back to normal and 'nothing has changed. NOTHING', I ask you; which individual restaurant sit-in or bus occupation forced the victory of the Civil Rights movement in America? Which individual letter to an MP or smashed window forced women to get the vote in Britain? Which individual signature on a petition, demo outside a town hall or unpaid bill overthrew the poll tax (and Thatcher with it)? Right now the wind is blowing outside. No one leaf is loud enough to be heard from hear, but when the whole tree's being blown... yeah, and back on planet Earth...... Sorry that last comment was a bit flip. My point is, and always has been, to stop the runway you need popular opinion with you. This won't do it. Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. I will say again - these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. You need the public with you, or nothing will change. |
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
