Climate Direct Action

90 comments on “Climate Direct Action ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ieuan 1

   21 December 2009 at 9:25 am

   What is the ‘point’ that they are trying to get across and why do they have to protest illegally?
2. rocky 2

   21 December 2009 at 9:31 am

   The ‘point’ is the lack of government and industry action on climate change. Somehow I thought that was fairly obvious! Try reading the archives for climate change or ets on this blog and you might get some idea.

   As for protesting illegally – they will be charged with being unlawfully on a building I imagine, but I know people that have won in court for similar actions – it’s questionable whether it is unlawful.

   Regardless of the legality, clearly the people doing it are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions – there’s no way they’ll be trying to escape from police when they come down. To my mind civil disobedience remains one of the most effective forms of protest – illegal action done by someone prepared to take the consequences to draw attention to their cause. Can you give some logical reason for being against it? Or is it the cause rather than the action you are against?
   • ieuan 2.1

     21 December 2009 at 9:37 am

     Obeying the law isn’t optional based on your moral or ethical point to view.

     If the corporations you protest against broke the law I am sure you would expect them to be punished and the same should apply to protesters (especially those that think they are above the law).

     Regarding the ’cause’ I guess calling Fonterra, ‘Fonterror’ sums it up.
     • rocky 2.1.1

       21 December 2009 at 9:41 am

       Regarding the ’cause’ I guess calling Fonterra, ‘Fonterror’ sums it up.

       In a text message to a friend, probably not expecting it to be published. And given Fonterra/Fonterror’s actions, is it not an appropriate name? Climate change will cause more terror around the globe than every terrorist attack put together.

       If the corporations you protest against broke the law I am sure you would expect them to be punished and the same should apply to protesters (especially those that think they are above the law).

       You just reinforced my point – the protesters are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. You won’t hear them complaining about being arrested for it.
       • ieuan 2.1.1.1

         21 December 2009 at 9:49 am

         ‘Climate change will cause more terror around the globe than every terrorist attack put together.’

         Even it that is the case (and I very much doubt it) how is that Fonterra’s fault??

         ‘So you won’t hear them complaining about being arrested for it.’

         So we won’t see a post that says they were illegally searched or the police didn’t want to talk to their lawyer?
         • rocky 2.1.1.1.1

           21 December 2009 at 9:55 am

           So we won’t see a post that says they were illegally searched or the police didn’t want to talk to their lawyer?

           The post you’re referring to: At no point did I complain about Jasmine being arrested, nor would I have complained if I were arrested. The arrests were lawful (whether found guilty in court or not). The car search was unlawful. What’s your point? I’m just not getting it.

           Even it that is the case (and I very much doubt it) how is that Fonterra’s fault??

           Try here as just one example.

           Would you consider whole populations and cultures being destroyed a minor matter?
           • ieuan 2.1.1.1.1.1

             21 December 2009 at 10:06 am

             So Fonterra using palm oil (in a perfectly legal manner) makes them responsible for the destruction of ‘whole populations and cultures’?

             Honesly, grumpy’s comment below (9:51am) sums it up perfectly.

             This protest will have zero effect on Fonterra, actually, it will probably harden the resolve of those in charge to ignore the lunatic environmental fringe.
             • rocky …

               21 December 2009 at 10:09 am

               So Fonterra using palm oil (in a perfectly legal manner) makes them responsible for the destruction of ‘whole populations and cultures’?

               That plus trying to prevent dairy farmers having to take any responsibility for the emissions from dairy farming.

               (in a perfectly legal manner)

               Are you claiming all actions, if legal, are also right and ethical?
             • grumpy …

               21 December 2009 at 10:16 am

               Ieuan, I would have a bit of time for the action if it was to demonstrate against Fonterra’s import of palm kernel (an action that cuts food production and leads to 3rd world starvation). That is an issue the public can understand. anti Global Warming is just so last year.
             • rocky …

               21 December 2009 at 10:21 am

               Ieuan, I would have a bit of time for the action if it was to demonstrate against Fonterra’s import of palm kernel (an action that cuts food production and leads to 3rd world starvation).

               Now we get to the bottom of it. It’s the cause rather than the action that you disagree with!
             • grumpy …

               21 December 2009 at 12:06 pm

               Of course.
         • gitmo 2.1.1.1.2

           21 December 2009 at 9:55 am

           I expect them to be really mature and blast “fuck the law” from their mopeds speed away from the scene.
           • rocky 2.1.1.1.2.1

             21 December 2009 at 9:58 am

             I expect them to be really mature and blast “fuck the law’ from their mopeds speed away from the scene.

             Can you give an example? I’ve never heard of activists “speed away from the scene”.
         • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1.3

           21 December 2009 at 9:56 am

           “So we won’t see a post that says they were illegally searched or the police didn’t want to talk to their lawyer?”

           Come on, Ieuan. Being illegally searched is illegal.

           If you think protesters should obey the law then you surely must think the police should.

           The rule of law means that actions should be dealt with by applying the law (rather than some arbitrary measures). If a citizen wants to do something, and is happy to submit to having the law applied, then the rule of law is being respected. If the police go beyond the law to punnish them, the rule of law is being breached. It’s not difficult mate.
     • Tigger 2.1.2

       21 December 2009 at 10:44 am

       ieuan – ever worked for ‘Fonterror’? I have. It’s a pretty apt name. And damn funny.
       • gitmo 2.1.2.1

         21 December 2009 at 10:52 am

         I didn’t know dairy cows had internet access.
         • Tigger 2.1.2.1.1

           21 December 2009 at 11:01 am

           Milk-tooth. Like blue-tooth but for cows.
     • Killinginthenameof 2.1.3

       22 December 2009 at 3:45 am

       “ieuan

       Obeying the law isn’t optional based on your moral or ethical point to view”

       Apparently it is when a farmer decides the fine for dumping shit in a river is less than the cost of proper disposal, or a fishing company decides to take more than their quota because they can sell it for more than the fine, or even a lowly old political party deciding to break the spending limits at election time because they can afford to pay a fine as well as the extra advertising.

       The law seems quite optional their, I’m sure you’d defend the fisherman and the farmer, maybe even the political party (depending where they sit on the political spectrum of course.
3. Gosman 3

   21 December 2009 at 9:33 am

   Just walked past them a few minutes ago. They are in fact only four stories up as suggested in the NZPA story.

   I’d agree with ieuan as well, it is unclear what exactly they are protesting against other than they blame Fonterra for climate change somehow. This is kind of like blaming Car manufacturers for road accidents.
   • rocky 3.1

     21 December 2009 at 9:39 am

     They are in fact only four stories up as suggested in the NZPA story.

     Probably feels like higher up when you’re hanging off a building 😉

     As for Fonterra, they are New Zealands largest greenhouse gas emitter and have lobbied the government extensively to take no effective action against agricultural emissions.
     • Gosman 3.1.1

       21 December 2009 at 9:54 am

       Fonterra would not be NZ largest greenhouse gas emitters. Unless you are now saying that when you buy something from someone else you are actually the one emitting the greenhouse gas from the products you buy. If so then we could resolve pretty much our entire Greenhouse gas problem by exporting everything we make.
       • rocky 3.1.1.1

         21 December 2009 at 9:57 am

         Under the terms of Kyoto you are quite correct – exports don’t count.

         However, take that aside, and Fonterra still account for 20% of our emissions on what they produce alone.
         • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1

           21 December 2009 at 10:01 am

           Fonterra is largely a marketing company. I’d suggest Fonterra doesn’t produce much the Greenhouse gas itself. I think you are mistaking Fonterra with the thousands of individual Dairy Farmers that sell their produce through Fonterra. Unless you have evidence suggesting that Fonterra’s operations, (Milk product processing and distribution), are in fact heavily Greenhouse gas intesnsive?
           • rocky 3.1.1.1.1.1

             21 December 2009 at 10:05 am

             LOL! I’m not sure you realise how ridiculous you sound trying to claim Fonterra aren’t responsible for the effects of milk production!
             • Lanthanide …

               21 December 2009 at 10:11 am

               Don’t all the individual farmers actually own Fonterra?
             • Gosman …

               21 December 2009 at 10:12 am

               Do you blame Marketing and distibution companies for causing all the Greenhouse gas emisions of the products they sell then?

               If so then companies such as Supermarkets and Hardware stores must be the biggest emmitters in the world.

               If Fonterra didn’t extist you would still have a Dairy industry in New Zealand. You would therefore still have pretty much the same amount of Greenhouse gas emisions.

               It is you analysis which is simplistic and ridiculous not mine.
             • rocky …

               21 December 2009 at 10:19 am

               If so then companies such as Supermarkets and Hardware stores must be the biggest emmitters in the world.

               Indeed. The reason not to target them in protest is that they haven’t been a major lobbying force against climate change policy in NZ.
           • ieuan 3.1.1.1.1.2

             21 December 2009 at 10:14 am

             Fonterra is far from being a marketing company. Even if you argue that the dairy farmers are not part of Fonterra and therefore Fonterra is not responsible for the farm emissions, Fonterra are very definitely responsible for the emissions from their dairy factories.

             These factories convert the vast majority of their milk into dried milk powder, this is done by burning coal.
             • Gosman …

               21 December 2009 at 10:18 am

               And that would be where you would have a case that Fonterra is a big emitter of Greenhouse gases not the actual dairying that goes on prior to them receiving the milk from the farmers.

               BTW I didn’t realise that Coal was such an important part of the process of turning Milk into Milk powder. Surely all you need is some form of power source. Why does this need to come from Coal, or is Coal used in some other way (is it added to the milk)?
4. mickysavage 4

   21 December 2009 at 9:36 am

   Go John

   I look forward to seeing the photos.
   • rocky 4.1

     21 December 2009 at 9:43 am

     Yeah John owns my favourite flickr page 😉 Don’t think his cellphone is flash enough to enable him to take photos and publish while hanging off a building though!
   • Pascal's bookie 4.2

     21 December 2009 at 11:49 am

     http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/events.php?event_id=9391&show_all=0&page_no=2

     also has images from the protest outside the NZX
   • Jagilby 4.3

     21 December 2009 at 1:10 pm

     Wow, that Flicker account really just sums up exactly why I don’t listen to guys like John Darroch and other eco-apostles.

     The absolute definition of a rent-a-crowd member skiting about his causes ranging from illegal immigrants to duck-shooting to climate change. And to think that Paul Henry is lambasted for being an attention seeker…
5. grumpy 5

   21 December 2009 at 9:51 am

   For a public already sceptical about climate change, who have had the “end of the world” rammed down their throats every night for a couple of weeks, a radical demonstrator hanging on a rope off a building (claiming to be 10 floors up when it’s only 4), is one more nail in the coffin of winning public sentiment over.
   • rocky 5.1

     21 December 2009 at 10:02 am

     claiming to be 10 floors up when it’s only 4

     In a text message to a friend! I imagine he was more focussed on climbing safely than counting the stories!

     For a public already sceptical about climate change, who have had the “end of the world’ rammed down their throats every night for a couple of weeks

     How would you suggest better sending the message for the public to digest? Oh hang on – you don’t actually want the public to get the message do you?
     • grumpy 5.1.1

       21 December 2009 at 10:08 am

       A text message to a friend – who then made it public.

       If it hasn’t got through aftyer being rammed down their throats every night for a week, a demonstrator on a rope is hardly likely to do the trick.
       • rocky 5.1.1.1

         21 December 2009 at 10:10 am

         A text message to a friend who then made it public.

         Indeed, I’m hoping he won’t be grumpy with me when he comes down!

         If it hasn’t got through aftyer being rammed down their throats every night for a week, a demonstrator on a rope is hardly likely to do the trick.

         Of course that makes it wrong?
         • grumpy 5.1.1.1.1

           21 December 2009 at 10:11 am

           No, just ineffective or worse, counterproductive.
           • Roflcopter 5.1.1.1.1.1

             21 December 2009 at 4:01 pm

             Yeah, well they keep adding random degrees celsius to any scientific findings they come across, so might as well add a few floors to the building level they’re on.
6. mickysavage 6

   21 December 2009 at 10:01 am

   But Grumpy if the population at large understood the enormity of the problem they would be demanding action from their elected representatives now.

   I agree that there is this reaction by some against having “the end of the world rammed down their throats every night for a couple of weeks” but this shows a major weakness of the human race. Many just do not want to think about it and this beligerence that some are stirring up is to replace the fear that people are feeling deep down.

   But there is no excuse for our elected representatives or elements of the business sector. They know the enormity of the problem but are refusing to take proper action.
   • grumpy 6.1

     21 December 2009 at 10:10 am

     Mickey, if the population at large understood the enormity of the problem, it would become an election issue and politicians would then be forced to act – a bit like National standards for primary education really.
     • mickysavage 6.1.1

       21 December 2009 at 10:30 am

       Actually the totally opposite.

       There is no crisis with our education system. Tolley takes a couple of sentences in a report, manufactures a crisis and tries to look tough by taking on the teacher’s union when it is the sector as a whole who is shaking it’s head in disbelief.

       There is a crisis with climate change. It is like a large boulder slowly rolling down a hill that will eventually destroy all before it. It will take a while to get there but unless you start to slow it down now destruction is inevitable. There may be a chance that it will miss but sticking your head in the sand and hoping that it will do so is not an option that I for one agree with.
       • grumpy 6.1.1.1

         21 December 2009 at 12:10 pm

         Really?????

         I do know that a huge number of kids leave school without being able to read and write.

         As for AGW, if, in 5 years time (As Al Gore predicts), the polar ice cap has vanished – then I’ll admit you were right.
7. Steve 7

   21 December 2009 at 10:24 am

   So they have seats and are quite comfortable. They may stay there until lunchtime.
   Here is a thought .. they are trespassing, leave them there overnight exposed to the elements. Don’t rescue them and stop anyone who tries. They may then be responsible for their actions.
   • rocky 7.1

     21 December 2009 at 10:26 am

     they are trespassing

     Possibly – depends whether they can hear the warnings to leave – under the Trespass Act 1980 you have to be warned to leave first.

     Don’t rescue them and stop anyone who tries.

     Somehow I expect they are more than capable of rescuing themselves.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     21 December 2009 at 11:59 am

     Do you always call for people who are protesting to be killed? Or is it only people who are protesting something that goes against your beliefs that you want to die?
     • Steve 7.2.1

       21 December 2009 at 12:17 pm

       What’s the matter with you?
       Who said anything about dying? Why the “jack in a box” response?
       A bit of cold wind and rain may make them think before trespassing.What makes you think I wish them dead Draco?
8. felix 8

   21 December 2009 at 12:26 pm

   Citizens calm down.

   If you disagree with your masters you will have the option to re-elect them in two years.

   Until then please be quiet, go calmly about your work, and keep your opinions to yourself.

   Remain seated unless you have a specifically approved reason to move.

   If the citizen next to you stands up, please remind them of the importance of obedience.

   Also please report them to the appropriate authorities.

   Have a sedate day.
9. gomango 9

   21 December 2009 at 12:44 pm

   I have no problem with protestors making their point, even to the point of minor illegality like this. It’s not overstepping the mark to any meaningful degree, hasn’t hurt anyone, doesn’t really cost anyone else, and I want NZ to be a society where everyone can make a point – that includes extremists from all issues. For instance I don’t agree with right wing fundamentalist zealots but they have a right to march down Queen Street. Nor do I agree with self styled eco warriors but again I don’t mind the odd building climb.

   But driving in to work this morning I heard on ZB news a comment from the protestors along the lines of “we are demanding an end to commercial farming in NZ”.

   That is the point at which you lose the argument with the other 99.99% of New Zealand. Without even debating climate change, sensible actions, the future of our children etc, when your starting position is essentially “we want to see a NZ with less than half of its current standard of living, massive poverty at the lower end of society, government services halved due to the loss of the tax base” you have lost the argument. No one will engage with you anymore.

   And while this post doesn’t mention Greenpeace, my recollection is that the ZB story did call this a “Greenpeace demonstration.” Never again will I give the Greenpeace panhandlers on Queen Street a donation.
   • rocky 9.1

     21 December 2009 at 12:49 pm

     It wasn’t a Greenpeace protest – John is not a member of Greenpeace as far as I am aware.

     “we want to see a NZ with less than half of its current standard of living, massive poverty at the lower end of society, government services halved due to the loss of the tax base’

     I think you’ll find there’s a lot of people involved in these actions with varying viewpoints – the commonality is that they all want to see urgent action on climate change. I think the point being made by whoever made the comment you refer to: “we are demanding an end to commercial farming in NZ”, is that the consequences of not doing anything could be even worse.
   • grumpy 9.2

     21 December 2009 at 12:50 pm

     I gave up on Greenpeace a long time ago when they decided their role was merely to take pictures of whales being killed.

     Now I donate to Sea Shepherd, a prime example of direct action in a noble and popular cause.
     • rocky 9.2.1

       21 December 2009 at 12:53 pm

       Good on you grumpy. I quite agree that when it comes to anti-whaling activism Sea Shepherd are so much cooler than Greenpeace or any other group 🙂
       • grumpy 9.2.1.1

         21 December 2009 at 2:27 pm

         Yep, Watson is my type of activist!
   • ben 9.3

     21 December 2009 at 2:50 pm

     Tell you what, Gomango, how about I come to your place unannounced, climb up on your roof, hang a sign on there that denounces your company, of course in ways you strongly disagree, and all in front of the filming media below.

     That would also be a minor illegality, and I’m guessing you’d be pretty bloody upset about it.
     • felix 9.3.1

       21 December 2009 at 3:13 pm

       Go on then, ben. If you care enough to do that you probably have your reasons. I’ll try to listen to what you have say, and lots of other people will too.

       Oh hang on, it’s all just theoretical with you, eh?
10. Winston Smith 10

    21 December 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Rocky and Grumpy you are utter numpties. Paul Watson is a freakin’ terrorist for heaven’s sake. He uses violence, he’s armed and he does more damaghe to the conservation effort than he does good.

    Just because he supports a cause you believe in doesn’t make him any better than an Islamic extremist who flies a plane into a building or suicide bombs a busy cafe.

    You can’t pick and choose the type of terrorism you’ll tolerate or endorse.
    • rocky 10.1

      21 December 2009 at 1:57 pm

      What violence are you referring to? I’ve never heard of Paul Watson engaging in any violence that wasn’t in self defence. You comparing him to a suicide bomber who flies planes into buidings and kills people shows who the real extremist here is.
      • Winston Smith 10.1.1

        21 December 2009 at 2:27 pm

        so welding a bulldozer blade as a can-opener to the side of his ship so that he can deliberately rip open the hulls of other vessels is self-defense???

        What about when the Sea Shepherd sank a whaler in Vigo using a limpet mine (reminds one of the French sinking the Rainbow Warrior does it not??)

        What about when Sea Shepherd sank two whalers in Iceland in 1986? That same year they shot at Faroese police.

        Or what about 1993 when one of the Sea Shepherd activists was indicted for the use of unregistered explosives, extortion and threats to interfere in interstate commerce and interstate transportation, to commit arson, theft and destruction of government property, and for receiving stolen property.

        Under the US Congress Animal Enterprise Protection Act Paul Watson is a terrorist.

        Check out the FBI definition of terrorism “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property, intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’

        Paul Watson has a long long record of using unprovoked violence against his targets – do your homework numpty.
        • Killinginthenameof 10.1.1.1

          22 December 2009 at 3:32 am

          On the side of his ship huh? do you understand how maritime “give way” laws work? I’d suggest not.
      • grumpy 10.1.2

        21 December 2009 at 2:29 pm

        The good thing about watson is that he’s focussed on his cause – not diluted by AGW etc. etc.

        Not only that but he’s effective.

        “He might be a terrorist but he’s my kind of terrorist”
        • Winston Smith 10.1.2.1

          21 December 2009 at 2:46 pm

          Bullshit.

          He was so effective that his actions resulted in Greenpeace losing their tax-exempt status in USA in 1977

          He is so effective that after 40 years or more of his efforts, the Japanese continue to hunt whales, the Canadians continue to club baby seals to death for their skins, shark finners continue finning sharks while they’re alive…

          Effective? Get real.

          [lprent: two comments in a row in your own words. Very good. I’ll remove the moderation block and see how you do. ]
          • Winston Smith 10.1.2.1.1

            21 December 2009 at 3:24 pm

            pompous creep

            [lprent: 😈 ]
            • felix 10.1.2.1.1.1

              21 December 2009 at 3:36 pm

              Some people just have no idea how to accept praise.
          • grumpy 10.1.2.1.2

            21 December 2009 at 6:00 pm

            That you Inwood???
    • felix 10.2

      21 December 2009 at 3:02 pm

      Winston: You can’t pick and choose the type of terrorism you’ll tolerate or endorse.

      Sure you can. For example, I quite like the kind of terrorism which involves punching holes in whaling boats.

      See how that works?
      • grumpy 10.2.1

        21 December 2009 at 3:06 pm

        I don’t call that terrorism.

        The Japanese killing of whales is terrorism. Punching holes in whaling boats is just like whacking the guy who’s attacking the kids next door with a bit of 4 x 2.
        • felix 10.2.1.1

          21 December 2009 at 3:10 pm

          Yeah I agree. That was kind of the point – in a round-about way – that defining terrorism isn’t as straightforward as Winston wants to think it is.
          • Winston Smith 10.2.1.1.1

            21 December 2009 at 3:36 pm

            FBI definition of terrorism “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property, intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’

            As for whacking the guy who’s attacking the kids next door with a bit of 4 x 2 I have a philosophical aversion to vigilantism but can appreciate the sentiment.

            But you demean and belittle child violence by likening it to whaling, you pitiful scum.
            • Armchair Critic 10.2.1.1.1.1

              21 December 2009 at 3:49 pm

              There is nothing right about assaulting children, or whaling. Beyond that there are fewer similarities. I admire Paul Watson for trying to do something to stop whaling, he’s seen a wrong being done, and tried his best to prevent it. My freedom fighter could well be your terrorist.
              I lack a boat with a tin opener on it, if I had one I would sail south. So a few years ago I wrote to the CEO of Toyota (I own two, the last purchased in the early 2000s) and advised him that until Japan stopped whaling I would not purchase another Toyota, or any other Japanese car for that matter. No reply of course, and just a token gesture, but better than hand-wringing IMO.
              • Winston Smith …

                21 December 2009 at 4:19 pm

                I have no issues with economic sanctions such as stopping buying Japanese cars.

                But terrorism on the high seas and piracy hasn’t worked – it just damages the conservation effort.
            • felix 10.2.1.1.1.2

              21 December 2009 at 3:57 pm

              Winston: That’s one definition, and a pretty objective one.

              It’s not the one used by the U.S. govt though. It’s also not the one used by the Israeli govt.

              As for your last sentence, I think you’re confused.

              You’re making it sound as if someone equated violence against children with violence against animals. To a compassionate person they’re not entirely dissimilar, but so far on this thread no-one has equated them.

              Whoever you were addressing that last sentence to, I think you owe them an apology. Cockhole.
              • Winston Smith …

                21 December 2009 at 4:13 pm

                grumpy said “Punching holes in whaling boats is just like whacking the guy who’s attacking the kids next door with a bit of 4 x 2”

                There’s your parallel between child violence and whaling, dickhead
              • felix …

                21 December 2009 at 5:07 pm

                Again, no-one’s equating them. (Yet).

                You’ve used the word “parallel” which is appropriate. Do you know what it means?
            • grumpy 10.2.1.1.1.3

              21 December 2009 at 6:12 pm

              Hi Glenn, pitiful scum here.

              As far as I know, Watson hasn’t actually deliberately punched holes in the side of a Japanese whaler yet. His can opener is a deterent to the whalers who have fired shots, used acoustic weapons etc. to try and discourage Sea Shepherd.”

              Watsons brilliant sinking of the Icelandic whaling fleet was when they were at anchor – unmanned.

              You forget that Watson is upholding a UN ban on whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. In that case he is acting with at least some, legal backing.

              As some of you know, I am not a trendy lefty, you would be surprised at the level of support for Watson from people you might well label as “righties
            • grumpy 10.2.1.1.1.4

              21 December 2009 at 6:14 pm

              Great definition – is it the same one the CIA uses?
              • felix …

                22 December 2009 at 2:16 pm

                Nah, they tack on a bit at the end which says “by other people”.
    • Killinginthenameof 10.3

      22 December 2009 at 3:35 am

      “Winston Smith

      You can’t pick and choose the type of terrorism you’ll tolerate or endorse.”

      You seem to have no problem doing exactly that? oh that’s right, your side is doing it, it is not called terrorism.
11. burt 11

    21 December 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Looks as though the strategy coming out of Climate Camp is that lobbying the NACT government is a waste of time go straight to those profiting.

    Al Gore will hate that.
12. mike 12

    21 December 2009 at 9:14 pm

    “John confirms that when he sent me that text message he had no idea how high he was and was guessing. John being new to climbing, I bet 4 stories felt pretty high”

    Sounds like another case of exaggerationitis that has infected thousands lately. Doctors say it usually only affects weak, gullible and paranoid people of a left persuasion…
    • grumpy 12.1

      21 December 2009 at 9:45 pm

      Normally, I would agree with you but Winston Smith has got me feeling a bit ambivalent politically.
    • Rex Widerstrom 12.2

      22 December 2009 at 12:18 am

      Puts me in mind of a live radio cross we were doing one morning as my sports guy took a hot air balloon ride with some listeners who”d won a contest. He was more excited than the contest winners.

      The damn thing wouldn’t take off for some reason, and he was dejected whilst I was annoyed. Then a few minutes before my shift was due to end I hear him yelling down the line:

      “We’re in the airr! We’re in the air!”

      So I put him to air and he describes the magnificent feeling of exhilaration, how nothing in his life has ever come close etc etc.

      I make the mistake of asking “How high off the ground are you Ian?”

      He relays the question to the balloonist. And the audience hears “About a foot”.

      😀

      It’s very easy to get over-excited when you’re up high and not used to it (I was similarly bitten by exaggerationitis when dangled off the top of the mast of a Whitbread yacht).

      Doubtful it was deliberate, and more due to exuberance than any of the causes you suggest.
13. Killinginthenameof 13

    22 December 2009 at 3:40 am

    That building is several stories higher above Lampton Quay than it is the Terrace. So I guess how many stories up you are depends on which side of the building you are on.

    Arrested then released hours later without charge seems a very common occurrence at protests, has anyone considered a case against the police for unlawful arrest?
    • Gosman 13.1

      22 December 2009 at 11:35 am

      Ummmm….. the building isn’t on The Terrace at all.

      Nice effort at spin though 😉
14. randal 14

    22 December 2009 at 11:31 am

    in answer to comment one.
    if it takes an illegal protest to get the job done then so be it.
    it is obvious that the green people aspire to live in a world that is not polluted and where the food is safe to eat but the fake aspirants who just want more stuff at any cost will also take the same attitude to those who would stand in the way of their infantile desires.
15. BLiP 15

    22 December 2009 at 1:46 pm

    What is up with the Police? They handled the entire incident in a professional manner without whipping up fear and resentment, gave the protesters a fair-nuff bollocking, issued a trespass notice and sent them on their way!!!

    A win-win outcome for all concerned. Amazing. Well done everyone. Long may it last.
16. BLiP 16

    22 December 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Meanwile – Fonterror and its farmers continue to be their own worst enemies.
17. Tony Everitt 17

    29 December 2009 at 11:23 am

    Well looking at the positives at least Fonterra have a strategy and momentum. See my blog http://www.greenbranz.org/?cat=26

Links to post

1. Algy: posted on 21 December 2009 at 9:32 am
2. Fonterra « CLEAN & GREEN?: posted on 29 December 2009 at 11:02 am
3. Five more unlawful arrests of protesters today « The Standard: posted on 7 January 2010 at 10:53 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS