• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Well done Plane Stupid


    by Sunny
    9th December, 2008 at 3:20 pm    

    Honestly, I love these guys. It does somewhat worry me that Plane Stupid is so unwilling to have a constitution or an organisational structure that soon enough someone malicious will try something violent and claim he/she was doing it as part of Plane Stupid to save the planet.

    Otherwise, fully supportive of yesterday’s occupation of Stansted. The Sun’s attempt to spin it into something malicious just adds fuel to my fire.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Environmentalism






    13 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Leon — on 9th December, 2008 at 4:28 pm  

      Heh this ‘group’ reminds me of the old Reclaim the Streets stuff (and anti road protest generally) of the 90s. Good to see it back. :)

    2. Trofim — on 9th December, 2008 at 5:03 pm  

      Could this be the Sunny who not long ago popped over to India for a few weeks, and on his return popped over to California for a few days to see Obama elected? His carbon footprint for those few weeks exceeded my carbon footprint for a couple of years. That is, if he travelled by aircraft powered by aviation fuel. If he remained true to his principles and travelled on aircraft powered by windmills, or perhaps went on his bike, I beg his pardon.

    3. Sunny — on 9th December, 2008 at 5:20 pm  

      Oh there’s no contradiction - I certainly try and reduce my carbon footprint in other ways, in addition to travelling abroad not that often. Besides, the protest was about not allowing an expansion of airport capacity at Stansted and HEathrow. I agree with that.

    4. Trofim — on 9th December, 2008 at 6:19 pm  

      Pull the other one. There are well established pressure groups for both Stansted and Heathrow, but not once have you or any of your PP colleagues voiced a peep of support for them, to my knowledge. After all, they’re local, middle-aged and middle-class. They might even be Tory voters or Daily Mail readers, hence barely human. Take a look:

      http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/

      http://www.hacan.org.uk/the_campaign/

      So, let’s face it, supporting them would be supporting NIMBYISM whereas green is fashionable, and it’s vital that you be seen to have green credentials in an edgy, radical, challenging the system sort of way.

    5. Ala — on 9th December, 2008 at 7:22 pm  

      Well they are Nimbys, and if they’re Daily Mail readers, climate change deniers too. I don’t agree with Plane Stupid, but at least they claim to have global concerns.

    6. dave bones — on 10th December, 2008 at 9:21 am  

      You think the nimbys seperate themselves from plane stupid? Really? What- like they are protesting in the same place about the same thing but don’t talk to each other?

    7. QuestionThat — on 10th December, 2008 at 10:34 am  

      What Trofim said. If the protest was really about Stansted & Heathrow expansion then they went a very strange way about it.

    8. ukliberty — on 10th December, 2008 at 11:55 am  

      I ask Sunny again: why do you support this interference with the freedom of movement of members of the public?

    9. Sunny — on 10th December, 2008 at 5:06 pm  

      but not once have you or any of your PP colleagues voiced a peep of support for them, to my knowledge.

      I’ve always been against Heathrow expansion, and have linked to those campaigns here in the past. Your knowledge is clearly lacking.

      ukliberty - do you support the death and destruction of people around the world impacted by global warming? Do they have a choice? What about their liberty?

    10. ukliberty — on 10th December, 2008 at 5:31 pm  

      Sunny, any interference with liberty has to be necessary and proportionate. It seems to me the outcome of the Stansted protest was at best negligible and at worst counterproductive, so I’d say it was a disproportionate interference (not to mention being unnecessary). How many lives do you think they have saved? To what extent do you think they should take their interference?

    11. Sunny — on 10th December, 2008 at 10:14 pm  

      Sunny, any interference with liberty has to be necessary and proportionate.

      Well, at least we’re agreed about that.

      But that doesn’t answer my question. The progression of our environmental strategy now means death and destruction for millions of people around the world - who are pissed off at the fact that you want to exercise your liberty but they have to pay the consequences.

      How do you plan to square that circle?

    12. ukliberty — on 11th December, 2008 at 10:53 am  

      Sunny, you’re one to talk about evading questions!

      I’m not sure the circle can be squared by me, you, Stansted customers, or Plane Stupid. We aren’t in a position to save millions of people from dying - governments are. And governments are persuaded by large numbers of people. I’m not sure large numbers of people are going to be persuaded by telling them they can’t have their holidays, cars, and TVs - that is where the Green Party went wrong.

      What interference is justified? You support preventing members of the public from flying. What about preventing them from using their cars?

      I don’t know enough about climate change to feel able to comment on effective measures. But I feel able to point out ineffective and counterproductive measures. I would also ask suggest this Government has its priorities mixed up - why on earth are we spending ridiculous amounts of money on bloated IT projects and intrusive surveillance systems while reducing funding for scientific research?

    13. Boyo — on 11th December, 2008 at 11:04 am  

      Bleh. I DESPISE them - toffy-nosed bastards. Its all about getting the oiks off my easy jet. Planes account for a marginal amount of pollution, but the wealthy (and you can bet these kids will be orf to Mozambique on their gap years yah to help the deserving poor, no doubt) have always supported the eco movement ever since the industrial revolution gave their serfs ideas above their station.

      Your support for this Sunny I like to think of as well-meaning niavety, although as a flag-waver for the non-socialist Left it is perfectly consistent with a Left that has been hijacked by the upper classes and “left” the workers behind.

      Cheers. Glad I got that off my chest!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.