Extinction Rebellion to camp on Peckham Rye park for 2 weeks

[Nigello]

Agreed - lots of people doing lots of tweaks can help but very few think further. Lots of children, a pet or two, all kinds of consumption - this is the excess that lots of folk won?t budge on, even though rejecting them en masse would do more than reusing plastic bags and recycling, etc.

[hpsaucey]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed - lots of people doing lots of tweaks can

> help but very few think further. Lots of children,

> a pet or two, all kinds of consumption - this is

> the excess that lots of folk won?t budge on, even

> though rejecting them en masse would do more than

> reusing plastic bags and recycling, etc.

Agree - there's plenty we can all do individually and at a community level. And plenty of local/ small projects and initiatives that can show those in power some real solutions. But without real structural change around energy supply and demand and living more sustainably in general- which requires governmental, business, cultural and international change - I think we're going to hell on a handcart.

(Happy Saturday all!)

HP

[Sue]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mabaker Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Well Rockets, guess you didn't agree with the

> > suffragettes then. If it wasn't for groups like

> XR

> > and all those pressure groups that went

> before,the

> > problems of climate change would be well down

> > Government's "to do" list.

>

> ANother way of helping would be to ditch your pet,

> your car, have only one child, etc. etc. but that

> is seen as maybe too radical, yet we have folk on

> here saying how much like the like and support the

> (very radical, at least in terms of intervention

> and direct action) XR. So, which one of you will

> do any of the above to really follow through on

> your flask-of-hot-tea boosterism?

Small individual acts may make the people concerned feel better, but in relation to actually addressing the causes of climate change, they are a drop in the ocean.

[Mabaker]

Just to be clear it wasn't me who wrote any of that post after "to do list". I absolutely agree that it's governments which must take the lead.

[first mate]

What is meant by ditching pets? I feel reasonably sure this is not a call for mass abandonment or euthanasia but just want to be clear.

I suspect fuel poverty and the unravelling energy crisis is more likely to cause a shift in behaviour than any amount of direct action.

[Mabaker]

Ditching pets comment was strange, I didn't want anyone thinking I wrote that. My two toms would be most offended!

[hpsaucey]

Assume ditching pets was meant to be a trite comment. Certainly will piss off all the rescues who work so hard to pick up the pieces when people really do ditch their pets/ don't neuter them and then have unwanted litters.

HP

[legalalien]

I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change, I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not planning to get a pet after the existing one, and fortunately have one child so no issues there!

[Nigello]

Ditching = ditching the concept of. 🙄

[Spartacus]

Should this thread now be moved to the lounge as its no longer ED specific ?

In relation to XRs actions, they are now in their 4th year, instead of causing disruption over that period, some of them could have completed degrees in physics, chemistry, biology and electronics and then taken research jobs in industries looking at reaching net zero and helped us all achieve that goal rather than expecting governments on their own or peoples assembly to be able to solve the problem.

Brains not brawn is the real way forward.

[hpsaucey]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is

> the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change,

> I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not

> planning to get a pet after the existing one, and

> fortunately have one child so no issues there!

Thirded re back to the 70s mode. The Good Life huh.

Have 3 cats - but all street strays I've rescued, neutered etc. 2 teenagers - can't really ditch them. Never had a car. Haven't flown (except once for work) since 2004. A mix of personal ethos and not being well off in my case.

HP

[Sazzle30]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but we can breed less, drive less and travel

> less. A bit of a defeatest post. In a generation'

> time your grandkids will ask where were you when

> we could have tackled climate change?

They won?t because I have chosen not to have kids. Not giving up my flying though :-)

Haven?t as yet seen anyone camping on the rye, unless they only stay at night and pack up for the day?

[BeatrixPaddler]

Depressing to read the attitude to climate change protest here. People have spent decades playing nicey nicey and nothing has changed for the better, it?s just got worse and worse. The planet is in crisis and drastic action is needed. But no, let?s get our knickers in a twist about a few tents on the Rye.

Those who are wondering why the council is ?allowing? it? They?ve presumably sensibly realised that applying to court for an eviction notice and engaging bailiffs to carry out the eviction isn?t particularly cost effective when it?s a peaceful encampment that will move on in two weeks. If there is any anti-social behaviour then it wil be for the police to move them on, not the council.

[Rockets]

They are not there because they fancy a few days in Peckham Rye, they are there to muster from other parts of the country before "bringing London to a grinding halt" with illegal protests and disruption. You're basically greenwashing anarchists...just look up their founders' comments on subjects like the Holocaust and rape. Another one of their founders admits to driving a diesel car....go figure........not a group I would want to be associated with.

[legalalien]

If the council want to allow it then they can officially authorise it and stand by the courage of their convictions. Not authorising it and doing nothing is a cop out and sets an unfortunate precedent. Methinks.

[gabys1st]

My understanding is that the Common is common land so can't be stopped from camping and that they have porto loos.

XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind turbines and building insulation.

Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

[first mate]

A slight aside but for that reason I do not understand how common land can be licensed for private use by the council ( Gala festival.

gabys1st Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding is that the Common is common land

> so can't be stopped from camping and that they

> have porto loos.

> XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind

> turbines and building insulation.

> Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to

> happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

[Sladey]

The Gala festival uses the park side of the Rye that used to be attached to the farmhouse. The campers are on the Common bit.

[Jenijenjen]

This year, due to flood alleviation works, Gala Festival will be taking place on the Common north of the cafe.

The Common was purchased by the Camberwell Vestry when the Lord of the Manor threatened to sell it for building. This ownership has passed to Southwark Council over the different forms of local government. I for one am very grateful the Vestry took this action, imagine the Common built over with tiny houses. However, after this purchase took place ancient common rights no longer applied.

For clarity this sets out the rights on common land from the Government website https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens.

"You cannot:

camp on common land without the owner?s permission

light a fire or have a barbecue

hold a festival or other event without permission

drive across it without permission unless you have the right to access your property"

Southwark are in effect turning a blind eye which in my opinion is the right thing to do. The campsite is taking up a very small space on the Rye and I don't see how it can impede residents' enjoyment of the common.

[Nigello]

That?s maybe so but XR is a movement - political and social - so a precedent has been set and the council may find itself accused of bias or at least naivety. XR ought to pay and enter into an agreement with Southwark to guarantee mess, damage etc.will be accounted for at the very least.

[Jenijenjen]

The council has been accused of SO many things that anything more is likely to be water off a duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has given a number of assurances in relation to noise, behaviour and leaving the park as they find it? and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any difference?

[wolis]

In the past few years my wife and I have been on quite a few marches - anti war, anti brexit , pro NHS etc. All were done with many thousands of fellow marchers and all done in good spirits. We booed outside Downing St. to protest against Bush on his London visit and cheered when a Brexit vote went against the goverment while were in Parliament Square. Did any of these marches have the slighest effect on the powers to be. NO. Britain still invaded Iraq, and Afganistan and left the EU and what mistakes they have turned out to be. If only Tony, George or Boris had asked us two for advice! Extinction Rebellion want to bring London to a standstill, something the IRA failed to do during their campaigns or indeed, the Luftwaffe. I've no doubt a lot have genuine and worthwhile intentions and in many ways we support them, but I think they would have more effect if they blocked Westminster, for example, and prevented the people in power from going about their daily work, but causing a few local traffic problems annoys a small number of people and wastes police time. But any lasting effect - NO.

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The council has been accused of SO many things

> that anything more is likely to be water off a

> duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has

> given a number of assurances in relation to noise,

> behaviour and leaving the park as they find it?

> and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the

> outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any

> difference?

How is that turning a blind eye going for the council....? This is what turning a blind eye enables....

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-61057845

For goodness sake even the Green party says it is counter productive.......this is the lunatic fringe being empowered by people who somehow think their cause is honourable....when the Green party says it has become counter productive you know they are doing long-term harm to the issue.

[legalalien]

Pondering this,

I?m not sure who exactly the council would have an agreement with. XR prides itself in being a decentralised organisation and if you look at their website they have some sort of arrangement with a company that acts as their ?fiscal host?, presumably so they can have a bank account, crowdfunder etc. although it does say that XR Global Support has a contractual arrangement with the fiscal host which suggests it is a legal entity in its own right.

[Waseley]

Mr/Mrs Rockets, do watch to the Caroline Lucas interview, reasonably reflected in the article. She was broadly supportive of XR, reflecting the frustration over lack of substantial action to tackle the climate emergency. This thread has debated both pro and con XR and had some great debate.