at last ...but not enough

https://news.sky.com/story/vegan-activist-guilty-over-fake-blood-protest-at-mcdonalds-11807959
A vegan activist who smeared fake blood over a McDonald's in Brighton has been convicted of criminal damage.

Dylan Roffey, 24, wore a pig's mask as she protested at the fast food restaurant on 18 May against the slaughter of animals.

Pictures of the demonstration showed the blood smeared over the floor of the McDonald's.

She was one of about 20 protesters who "overwhelmed" security when they entered the premises holding signs and chanting through a megaphone.

a beggarly fine and a bit of community service...she should have got 5 years

why?

well like ALL these "protesters" she wasnt ACTUALLY protesting, what she was doing was preventing others from going about their lawful business, a right which is enshrined in law (and conveniently forgotten about by a politically biased and L/W judiciary) and which absolute right overarches some jeuvenile tits right to make a song and dance about something they know nothing about.

the same applies to those idiots in london the other week disrupting the place for days and costing many a lot of money for rearranging travel and work etc.

Yes , protest all you want ....from the side lines, but the moment your protest interferes with "lawful business" you should have your skull cracked by a coppers baton......no matter what the "cause"

Victorismyhero wrote:https://news.sky.com/story/vegan-activist-guilty-over-fake-blood-protest-at-mcdonalds-11807959
A vegan activist who smeared fake blood over a McDonald's in Brighton has been convicted of criminal damage.

Dylan Roffey, 24, wore a pig's mask as she protested at the fast food restaurant on 18 May against the slaughter of animals.

Pictures of the demonstration showed the blood smeared over the floor of the McDonald's.

She was one of about 20 protesters who "overwhelmed" security when they entered the premises holding signs and chanting through a megaphone.

a beggarly fine and a bit of community service...she should have got 5 years

why?

well like ALL these "protesters" she wasnt ACTUALLY protesting, what she was doing was preventing others from going about their lawful business, a right which is enshrined in law (and conveniently forgotten about by a politically biased and L/W judiciary) and which absolute right overarches some jeuvenile tits right to make a song and dance about something they know nothing about.

the same applies to those idiots in london the other week disrupting the place for days and costing many a lot of money for rearranging travel and work etc.

Yes , protest all you want ....from the side lines, but the moment your protest interferes with "lawful business" you should have your skull cracked by a coppers baton......no matter what the "cause"

+1`

Victorismyhero wrote:https://news.sky.com/story/vegan-activist-guilty-over-fake-blood-protest-at-mcdonalds-11807959
A vegan activist who smeared fake blood over a McDonald's in Brighton has been convicted of criminal damage.

Dylan Roffey, 24, wore a pig's mask as she protested at the fast food restaurant on 18 May against the slaughter of animals.

Pictures of the demonstration showed the blood smeared over the floor of the McDonald's.

She was one of about 20 protesters who "overwhelmed" security when they entered the premises holding signs and chanting through a megaphone.

a beggarly fine and a bit of community service...she should have got 5 years

why?

well like ALL these "protesters" she wasnt ACTUALLY protesting, what she was doing was preventing others from going about their lawful business, a right which is enshrined in law (and conveniently forgotten about by a politically biased and L/W judiciary) and which absolute right overarches some jeuvenile tits right to make a song and dance about something they know nothing about.

the same applies to those idiots in london the other week disrupting the place for days and costing many a lot of money for rearranging travel and work etc.

Yes , protest all you want ....from the side lines, but the moment your protest interferes with "lawful business" you should have your skull cracked by a coppers baton......no matter what the "cause"

At some point, you are guilty of theft, as you are taking money out of someone's pocket.

I agree with you Vic. She took it too far and damaged a business even if for a short time.

But...she got in the news and made her point so perhaps that was all she wanted.

Did Gandhi and his supporters make sure the people they were protesting could go on about their day-to-day business?

Watching people do something you think is morally reprehensible from a safe vantage point and protesting is pretty weak, if you ask me.

This is what you do if you actually believe in your cause:

Ben Reilly wrote:Did Gandhi and his supporters make sure the people they were protesting could go on about their day-to-day business?

Watching people do something you think is morally reprehensible from a safe vantage point and protesting is pretty weak, if you ask me.

This is what you do if you actually believe in your cause:

That guy was taking on government. Oppressive government at that.

Government, business, whatever. He was taking on something he couldn't morally abide, which is my point.

Of course protesters should be ready to face the consequences of what they do. But they should also actually *do* something if they feel that strongly -- not stay safe and non-disruptive.

Politeness never changed the world, did it?

Ben Reilly wrote:Government, business, whatever. He was taking on something he couldn't morally abide, which is my point.

Of course protesters should be ready to face the consequences of what they do. But they should also actually *do* something if they feel that strongly -- not stay safe and non-disruptive.

Politeness never changed the world, did it?

I totally agree with your passion in this but people can’t go around vandalising other people’s businesses and property. End of.

Ben Reilly wrote:Government, business, whatever. He was taking on something he couldn't morally abide, which is my point.

Of course protesters should be ready to face the consequences of what they do. But they should also actually *do* something if they feel that strongly -- not stay safe and non-disruptive.

Politeness never changed the world, did it?

Government is comprised of public servants who have a responsibility to the people they serve. You dont have a choice with them.

Protesting them is far different than harassing some small business trying to make a living.

or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Victorismyhero wrote:or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Rights are derived from a written social contract. Where is yours?

Sure, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty and pursuit of a good life, but where does it say you have the right to prevent others from their rights through physical violence?

Seems to me the only state that supports your "rights" is the state of nature...or, in other worlds, open war.

Victorismyhero wrote:or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Agreed and people have a right to act against those causing criminality. To prevent them causing harm or criminaility. Glad this fuckwit got taken to task here and have no idea how Ben is comparing this to Ghandi. I mean for goodness sake

Catch you later mate

Stand in front of me and my Bacon sandwich and it's WAR !

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Rights are derived from a written social contract.  Where is yours?

Sure, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty and pursuit of a good life, but where does it say you have the right to prevent others from their rights through physical violence?

Seems to me the only state that supports your "rights" is the state of nature...or, in other worlds, open war.

You have no right to expect me not to bust your nose, because I haven't signed my social contract yet.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Rights are derived from a written social contract.  Where is yours?

Sure, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty and pursuit of a good life, but where does it say you have the right to prevent others from their rights through physical violence?

Seems to me the only state that supports your "rights" is the state of nature...or, in other worlds, open war.

You have no right to expect me not to bust your nose, because I haven't signed my social contract yet.  

Hey...we can go to war. Me, killing your family, and you killing my family...not a happy prospect, all things considered. And then, there's the feeding and housing, all subject to the tides of war.

Eventually, folks get smart and enter into social contracts. They lay down rules, and establish rights, so the people can get on with life. If you don't want to sign the social contract, we have nice prisons for you. It's not coercion, because, as Thomas Hobbes noted, the absence of a social contract is the state of war!

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Rights are derived from a written social contract.  Where is yours?

Sure, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty and pursuit of a good life, but where does it say you have the right to prevent others from their rights through physical violence?

Seems to me the only state that supports your "rights" is the state of nature...or, in other worlds, open war.

I have the right , codified in law to "go about my lawful business unmolested"

just because some one has some sort of moral objection to what I do, if what I am doing is lawful (and perhaps even merely not "unlawful") then they have NO right, no matter how strong their objection to impede me from so doing, since by doing so, by the mere fact that they are abrogating MY right to go about my lawful business they are, at least acting unlawfully, (to do so should actually be criminal)

Victor wrote:I have the right , codified in law to "go about my lawful business unmolested"

When you say "lawful business" you presume a social contract.  That is the basis of "law".  The only inalienable rights—ie, attach to you personally, outside the social contract—are life, liberty and equal access to happiness.

What that means is that as you interact with others, you either abide by the rules, or you are an outlaw (contemplate the etymology of that term).  That is how Hobbes framed the issue for us: you are in the social contract, or you are in a state of war with all others:

WordPress wrote:Hobbes conceives of man as existing in a state of nature, in which the man’s lot is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” It is a period predating the establishment of the state, in which each and every man is in constant and violent conflict with one another, “a war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). Yet seeing that such conflict is unending and brutal, man opts for a compromise, an end to the perpetual fighting with his peers, through the mediation of the state. Thus the social contract is born, a compact among men in which the state is vested with absolute powers in exchange for the protection of life. For Hobbes, the inclination to survival as the first of man’s desires replaces happiness, in the classical sense.
https://writtenonourhearts.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/a-war-of-all-against-all-hobbes-interpretation-of-natural-law-share/

In modern terms, one is an outlaw, or one is a law abiding citizen. You cannot be both.

phildidge wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:or indeed obstructing me from getting my burger.........

I should have the right to smash my way through them without regard to their welfare...whereas they should not be able to lift a finger to stop me.

I have the right in law to buy a burger.....they have NO right in law to stop me doing so.....

the animal rights mob obstructed and threatened a friend of mine who worked for a pharma company.......he should have had the right to drive straight over them in order to get into work.........

Agreed and people have a right to act against those causing criminality. To prevent them causing harm or criminaility. Glad this fuckwit got taken to task here and have no idea how Ben is comparing this to Ghandi. I mean for goodness sake

Catch you later mate

You're confused because you can't believe or accept that the "fuckwit" believes in the righteousness of his vegan cause as fervently as Ghandi believed in the cause of freedom.

I didn't say the two causes are similar in any way, other than how strongly their proponents believe in them.

At the end of the day, you cannot go around vandalising property because you have something to say. That’s just ignorance.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You have no right to expect me not to bust your nose, because I haven't signed my social contract yet.  

Hey...we can go to war.  Me, killing your family, and you killing my family...not a happy prospect, all things considered.  And then, there's the feeding and housing, all subject to the tides of war.

Eventually, folks get smart and enter into social contracts.  They lay down rules, and establish rights, so the people can get on with life.  If you don't want to sign the social contract, we have nice prisons for you.  It's not coercion, because, as Thomas Hobbes noted, the absence of a social contract is the state of war!

So we can expect people to respect other people's bodies and property. Glad we agree, even though you had to walk around the block to get next door.

eddie wrote:At the end of the day, you cannot go around vandalising property because you have something to say. That’s just ignorance.

You can if it's yours. But otherwise its advisable to keep your hands to yourself, unless your willing to accept retaliation.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:At the end of the day, you cannot go around vandalising property because you have something to say. That’s just ignorance.

You can if it's yours.  But otherwise its advisable to keep your hands to yourself, unless your willing to accept retaliation.  

And as I've pointed out, if your cause means so much to you that you can't restrain yourself to legal speech and feel you have to smash shit up, you should accept that you'll be punished for that.

I'm not trying to say that protesters who smash shit up should get away with it -- never said that.

I'm just saying that sometimes, protesters willing to smash shit up are the ones who change things, far more so than the ones who merely hold up signs and chant slogans.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can if it's yours.  But otherwise its advisable to keep your hands to yourself, unless your willing to accept retaliation.  

And as I've pointed out, if your cause means so much to you that you can't restrain yourself to legal speech and feel you have to smash shit up, you should accept that you'll be punished for that.

I'm not trying to say that protesters who smash shit up should get away with it -- never said that.

I'm just saying that sometimes, protesters willing to smash shit up are the ones who change things, far more so than the ones who merely hold up signs and chant slogans.

OK. I'll agree with that to a degree.

But usually its the protestors that shoot people that really change things.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hey...we can go to war.  Me, killing your family, and you killing my family...not a happy prospect, all things considered.  And then, there's the feeding and housing, all subject to the tides of war.

Eventually, folks get smart and enter into social contracts.  They lay down rules, and establish rights, so the people can get on with life.  If you don't want to sign the social contract, we have nice prisons for you.  It's not coercion, because, as Thomas Hobbes noted, the absence of a social contract is the state of war!

So we can expect people to respect other people's bodies and property. Glad we agree, even though you had to walk around the block to get next door.  

Awww...is the political philosophy lesson too hard on baby's brain? Let's go back to checkers, then. Or maybe you'd just like the rattle to play with tonight.

As for your question, well, did you sign the social contract? If you did, and you behave yourself, you can join the social union.

you are confusing UK law with US law again Quill

Victorismyhero wrote:you are confusing UK law with US law again Quill

Thomas Hobbes...a US citizen???  Thomas Hobbes, in some older texts Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy.

Hobbes has been called the father of modern, liberal democracy.  Hobbes defined a pre-political state, as a state of nature that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible.  Hobbes established the notion that political authority derived from a social contract.  Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority and power of government in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.  https://healthresearchfunding.org/thomas-hobbes-social-contract-theory-explained/

The discussion of Hobbes is relevant to any discussion of libertarianism, as the latter proposes that we do without civil authority for the most part.  The polarities are 'state of warre' and 'social contract', originally proposed by Hobbes.  Typical of this, Maddog has declared that he never signed the social contract...which, I suppose, would make him a criminal.  The term outlaw is derived from being outside the social contract.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So we can expect people to respect other people's bodies and property. Glad we agree, even though you had to walk around the block to get next door.  

Awww...is the political philosophy lesson too hard on baby's brain?  Let's go back to checkers, then.  Or maybe you'd just like the rattle to play with tonight.  

As for your question, well, did you sign the social contract?  If you did, and you behave yourself, you can join the social union.

I have not signed anything yet will still keep my hands to myself except for self defense.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Awww...is the political philosophy lesson too hard on baby's brain?  Let's go back to checkers, then.  Or maybe you'd just like the rattle to play with tonight.  

As for your question, well, did you sign the social contract?  If you did, and you behave yourself, you can join the social union.

I have not signed anything yet will still keep my hands to myself except for self defense.  

But, be forewarned: you live in a state of warre, and if you don't follow the laws you will be branded a criminal (unless you have money and/or privilege).

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have not signed anything yet will still keep my hands to myself except for self defense.  

But, be forewarned: you live in a state of warre, and if you don't follow the laws you will be branded a criminal (unless you have money and/or privilege).

Thanks for the heads up.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:you are confusing UK law with US law again Quill

Thomas Hobbes...a US citizen???  Thomas Hobbes, in some older texts Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy.

Hobbes has been called the father of modern, liberal democracy.  Hobbes defined a pre-political state, as a state of nature that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible.  Hobbes established the notion that political authority derived from a social contract.  Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority and power of government in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.  https://healthresearchfunding.org/thomas-hobbes-social-contract-theory-explained/

The discussion of Hobbes is relevant to any discussion of libertarianism, as the latter proposes that we do without civil authority for the most part.  The polarities are 'state of warre' and 'social contract', originally proposed by Hobbes.  Typical of this, Maddog has declared that he never signed the social contract...which, I suppose, would make him a criminal.  The term outlaw is derived from being outside the social contract.

forget your hobbes red herring and political philosphy

Common law (the greater part of UK civil law) and statute law are agreed on the point that the right to go about your lawful business unmolested and unhindered is indeed a "right" and one which supersedes the right of protest.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Thomas Hobbes...a US citizen???  Thomas Hobbes, in some older texts Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy.

Hobbes has been called the father of modern, liberal democracy.  Hobbes defined a pre-political state, as a state of nature that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible.  Hobbes established the notion that political authority derived from a social contract.  Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority and power of government in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.  https://healthresearchfunding.org/thomas-hobbes-social-contract-theory-explained/

The discussion of Hobbes is relevant to any discussion of libertarianism, as the latter proposes that we do without civil authority for the most part.  The polarities are 'state of warre' and 'social contract', originally proposed by Hobbes.  Typical of this, Maddog has declared that he never signed the social contract...which, I suppose, would make him a criminal.  The term outlaw is derived from being outside the social contract.

forget your hobbes red herring and political philosphy

Common law (the greater part of UK civil law) and statute law are agreed on the point that the right to go about your lawful business unmolested and unhindered is indeed a "right" and one which supersedes the right of protest.

Don't be silly, Vic.  The discussion is about political theory (I ought to know, I brought up the subject).  Law comes after civil society is formed, as a result of the social contract.

Follow the post on Thomas Hobbes, who formulated early-modern political theory, and wrote the book on the subject.  See, Hobbes, Leviathan (1651); see also, De Cive (1642).
https://douglasibell.com/2014/03/13/hobbes-warfare-and-state-formation/

You started the thread, and titled it: at last...but not enough...  In an attempt to answer the "not enough" question, I went back to basic beginnings.  Political theory discusses the foundation of rights, which precedes the formation of laws or codes.

ah ok then...you are indulging in obfuscation ......

Victorismyhero wrote:ah ok then...you are indulging in obfuscation ......

It's your thread. How can anyone obfuscate with a title like at last...but not enough...??

If anything, you were drinking when you thought that one up.

in which case you do not understand the situation viz these wasters over here

at last one has been prosecuted

but not sufficiently severely OR for the correct breach of law (imo)

the offenses she is guilty of are more than merely minor criminal damage
there is involved the breach of a fundamental right in British law ,of the freedom to go about your lawful business, unhindered and unmolested.

which right, i ( think, but dont quote me on that )was first codified in magna carta

Victorismyhero wrote:in which case you do not understand the situation viz these wasters over here

at last one has been prosecuted

but not sufficiently severely OR for the correct breach of law (imo)

the offenses she is guilty of are more than merely minor criminal damage
there is involved the breach of a fundamental right in British law ,of the freedom to go about your lawful business, unhindered and unmolested.

which right, i ( think, but dont quote me on that )was first codified in magna carta

I agree. If you want to go back to the first moral/political principles of England, equivalent to the US Constitution over here, it would be the Magna Carta. I was thinking exactly that, earlier in the discussion.