Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

3,149 profile views
  1. Who ever the new PM is they are obviously going to have a huge say what direction this country takes on the biggest political issue of a generation. Who that person is will be decided by only 100,000 or so people, less than 0.2% of the population. Can anyone who thinks that a second referendum would be undemocratic explain how the situation we are in is somehow more democratic?
  2. Quote from an article in the DM. "The Electoral Commission was quick to blame the government for not enacting voting reforms it proposed after the 2014 European elections. A spokesperson said: 'We understand the frustration of some citizens of other EU Member States, resident in the UK, who have been finding they are unable to vote today when they wish to do so. 'This legal process could be made easier for citizens, and the Commission made the case for doing so following the last EU elections in 2014. However, improvements to the process are reliant on changes to electoral law, which can only be taken forward by Government and Parliament." So the electoral commission highlighted a problem to the government, who chose to do nothing about it. Nope not the governments fault at all.
  3. So what did you mean? Niels suggested flying in got more publicity than Skype would have, your post "absolutely" suggested you agreed. A major point of the protests was publicity so it seems she achieved what she set out to do so I assumed you thought she made the right choice.
  4. So you agree her flying there was the right thing to do, given that the whole purpose of the protests was to get publicity?
  5. It really isn't that simple at all, there is nothing simple about this. We're currently using 1.7 earths worth of resources every year, so in order to have balance and use 1 years worth of resource every year we need to reduce resource use by 40%, which if your suggesting population is the issue means a population reduction of 40%. Let's say you manage to persuade everyone to stop making babies straight away, with death rates of 50m per year that means it'll be 60 years until were back to an equilibrium! I'm not saying population growth isn't an issue, it's just one of a number of very complicated factors. Capitalism has been a hugely beneficial way of increasing living standards and development around the world, but in doing so has consumed and destroyed more the the finite planet can cope with. We (as in everybody, myself included I'm not finger pointing and blaming others) need to work together to (quickly) adapt our systems to consume far less and live sustainably. The XR protests seem to be pointing that out, to raise awareness in the general population and to pressure governments to accept the issue and start acting. No individual actions from Emma Thompson or anyone else is going to sort this out, it needs to be a systemic change accepted and supported by all. There is nothing to be achieved by calling the protesters hypocritical, that's simply shooting the messenger.
  6. My point was John that these people have given up their time (choosing to use annual leave or spare time to be there) and energy (organising the protests, chaining/gluing themselves to stuff etc) which to me suggests they clearly care about the issue. That all there other actions (flying, plastic bottles etc) don't necessarily reflect this shows how bad we humans are at making small every day decisions which are good in the long term. I think this post from another thread perfectly illustrates my point... You seem to accept that your weight has caused you health issues but you haven't always been able to make the right decisions to control it. We humans, myself included, are generally speaking very bad at personal responsibility. No one decision, one meal or one snack causes a person to be overweight, it's a series of choices made where we often tell ourselves it'll be ok I'll start my diet, exercise, stop drinking etc tomorrow. When we broaden that out to personal responsibility for the climate it becomes infinitely harder, when I'm choosing whether to walk or drive to work I can look out at my neighbour in there gas guzzling car or see a new power station opening in China and think oh well my decision won't have an impact, its everyone else that's the issue. The only solution I can see is for enough people to make enough noise about the issue to say to those in power you need to make the unpopular decisions that take these choices out of our hands or influence my decisions in a positive way. You seem keen to criticise the protesters, do you have any alternative suggestions of how we can stop the destruction of our ecosystem?
  7. I have been giving this a lot of thought this week, particularly as this seems to be a focus of some of the predictable right wing press reporting of the protests, playing the man not the ball so to speak. Look that hippy has a plastic bottle, phew, now we don't have to discuss the highly complex problem that we are currently destroying the ecosystem which we rely for on for our survival. I think we can assume that, generally speaking, people on these protests care more about the environment the average person, giving up their time and energy to be there. But as people point out some of their actions are not in keeping with protecting the environment. I would put myself and lots of people I know in the same position, aware of the issues, supporting change but, in different ways not personally doing enough (flying too much, driving too much, eating too much meat and dairy etc). So why is this? In my opinion in comes down to the fact the humans seem to be very bad at making decisions which, on a personal level, are beneficial in the long term. How many people in society do we see who eat / drink / smoke too much, don't exercise enough or generally make choices which are not in our own best interests. So if we can't even do this when we know that if we resisted the negative temptations our lives would likely be better, how on earth can we be collectively expected to do this for the long term benefit of our society and species. On a personal level if you can find the motivation to make the right choices most of the time you will likely see the benefits. With climate change it's left up to peoples own personnel choices to drive change, we are expecting people to make the right choice even though when millions (billions) of other aren't then we won't see the benefits. The consequence, I believe, is that as we see with the protesters, even those who care most, probably aren't doing enough. Which leads on to so what do we we do. Politics and democracy has constantly failed in this area. The green party probably offer some solutions, but in the short term there policies will likely be painful and so get rejected and ridiculed. We expect our lives and those of future generations to get better and capitalism has, generally been a very successful tool in making this happen. To implement changes to avert the worst effects of climate change is going to involve some very difficult and painful choices, and changes to our current economic model. This won't be popular and so our current political system can't deal with it. One of Extinction Rebellions key suggestions is to have citizens assemblies, outside of political influence, to analyze the facts (probably provided by so called "experts") and decide what difficult decisions need to be made. I don't know if this could ever work, but it's something that deserves further discussion because time is quickly running out (some say 10 years before we reach irreversible tipping points) and currently the world seems more preoccupied with which flag we should be waving above our sinking ship.
  8. That depends how you look at it. We were on track with our recent emissions targets, however we're not on track to hit the more difficult future targets. The targets themselves are questionable because they don't include imports so in reality we've not reduced our emissions, just exported them and as this is a global issue that doesn't help anyone. There is also a big question as to whether the global emissions go far enough to limit the worst effects of climate change, many think they don't. So in conclusion we are not on track to meet inadequate targets to stop the catastrophic impacts of climate change, not great.
  9. And if we don't act soon and in a more significant way then is currently aimed for, it's going to have serious consequences for, well for everybody.
  10. I have mixed feelings about this. The boycott movement against South Africa was clearly effective and there are many similarities to the way Israel is behaving in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to that apartheid era. It brings an awareness to the issues and Israel's strong response to it shows they see the boycott as a real threat. There are many people who support the boycott movement who genuinely do so to help support the human rights of the Palestinian, not because they are anti-Israels existence. There are however of course others who are anti Israel for other, unacceptable, reasons and are just using the boycott movement as a way to support those ideas. Without knowing the detail behind the people in this particular case it's hard to know what their motivations were.
  11. I think the Christian Palestinians would disagree with that. The problem is America declaring support for a state which is illegally occupying another.
  12. Anybody know if the nrl grand final is on freesports? Not showing on my program guide at the moment.
  • Create New...