And the downside is?

You’re a troll SMFS.

“‘ICC: Internatinal Climate Criminals’.”

Oh Tempora, O Mores….

“International Chamber of Commerse”

I blame the education system myself.

Perhaps a little more attention to be paid to that readin’n'ritin’ stuff and a tad less to the turbo-consumerism is going to boil Flipper?

Daniel,

Why is anyone who does not agree with your viewpoint always a Troll? Wandering round saying this is exactly the sort of unhelpful distracting comment so beloved of well, erm, trolls (presumably they have special big keyboards for those big chuncky fingers?). Especially since SMFS has left intelligent comments elsewhere and is clearly being pointedly flippant here.

It is the equivalent in terms of sense of protesting by blocking a door people want to use. It goes from expressing an opinion to impeding others’ rightful ability to go about their business. And it also shows the same mindset of assuming others are behaving according to your preconceptions.

There, brought this back on topic…

You do know picking out spelling errors just makes you look like a troll too Tim W?

Good grief, anything to deflect from the issue itself.

Daniel, what is the real issue – apart from the fact that two people broke the law and have been punished? Rightly.

Watchman:

That is not the case, SMFS is not debating the issue and merely trolling here, hence gets called a troll. And just as you in another thread have defended Twat Munro, a person here many have no respect for based on the quality of his comments, you also see good in SMFS, which is up to you but do not try and play blog arbiter here with me; we’ve got EPIC DALE do to that for us all.

SMFS:

The real issue? Being allowed to peacefully demonstrate. No doubt the piece was also put up to make the point that sabotaging Copenhagen can be done with impunity but protesting against such sabotage gets you punished.

Just because you don’t agree with the reason for protest, doesn’t make it invalid.

Also Watchman, your troll rule is flawed, for if outing someone as a troll imbues the outer with a the title of troll, how is genuine trolling to be spotted?

Sign language? A series of coded gestures?

Daniel,

Peaceful protest fine. Blocking egress is not peaceful protest; it is obstruction. If you tried it at my workplace, a couple of very pleasant uniformed fellows would drag you away and you would be reported to the police. Regardless of how legitimate your concern.

I should point out any protest is valid (although protests in favour of releasing polar bears in school grounds across Britain should probably be counter-protested by all right (wrong and muddled)-thinking people). It is how you do it that is the problem.

And incidentally, I am not arbitrating your behaviour. I am poking fun at the way in which you think and how it resembles the similiar arrogance of belief of these protesters.

Watchman:

You can class it an non-peaceful protest but I do not, it is not as if this is a black and white issue and by all means defend the action of the arrest of these people but I for one do not share that view.

And glad you’ve stepped back from being an arbiter and are now falling back on the old ‘poking fun’ riff. This in itself is funny coming from someone called the Watchman but still…

Daniel,

“Also Watchman, your troll rule is flawed, for if outing someone as a troll imbues the outer with a the title of troll, how is genuine trolling to be spotted?

Sign language? A series of coded gestures?”

I propose that when a possible troll is identified we all start using the titles of Red Hot Chilli Pepper songs (for the very old, very out of touch etc they are a quite popular singing/music combo from California; give them a try, you might like them) in all posts (Californicaiton could present a challenge).

For those who don’t get the obscure reference – they released ‘Under the Bridge’. As in where the troll in the Three Billy Goats Gruff lives…

What do you mean this might be a bit obscure and arcane. That’s the whole fun of it. Why else would I be a member of the conspiracy to deny climate change and destroy Copenhagen (hopefully the process, not the city) if we didn’t have lots of arcane and hidden ways of conveying messages? Hang on, was I meant to let on about that…

W:

I respect the volume of records they sold I can’t dig their music, so we’ll have to have a committee meeting on the appropriate band name to be utilised, this will have to be a closed shop with everyone present signing a non-trolling agreement; otherwise trolls will get the hand on the aforementioned code and then we’ll have to start again from scratch.

Even libertarians are welcome by the way and I can’t stop because got to collect a parcel.

I find it very frustrating when (as here) I read a news report that says so-and-so had a penalty imposed for doing something, but the report doesn’t say what offence they were actually charged with (obstruction? breach of the peace? or what?)

This makes a difference when trying to understand what the authorities are doing and thinking.

Daniel,

Would your time not better spent by resisting the temptation to come onto this board accusing people you disagree with of being trolls?

@15 – without that, and generally calling people names, what would he actually have to say?

Doesn’t pass the “so what ?” test for me.

Two London residents have been fined £400 by Westminster Magistrates Court for protesting

Is this actually true, they were fined for protesting, if so it’s outrageous; on the other hand it could be, shall we say, stretching the truth, otherwise known as lying.

18 – trespass possibly? Or breach of the peace, or public nuisance. There’s an offence of ‘protesting’ with a 1km (why kilometres!?) of the Palace of Westminster, but that wouldn’t apply here (and should be struck off the books asap in any case).

I don’t care what they were fined for as long as they were fined. Pity the fine is ridiculously small

The key words in the article above are “attempted to peacefully blockade”.

Freedom to demonstrate and express an opinion is correctly sacrosanct but the right to prevent others going about their lawful business is not. That is what happened in this case and why they were correctly prosecuted.

You will notice I make no pejorative comment whatever regarding the matter being protested about, the correctness of the science that underpins their vision of the future or the general worthiness of the AGW cause being being espoused by these…..er……wankers.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/climatethieves/sets/72157622999248960/

7. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – “That is not the case, SMFS is not debating the issue and merely trolling here, hence gets called a troll.”

The fact that there is no moral or political issue here is, precisely, the issue. Or do you think that people whose politics you agree with ought to have a special dispension to break the law as they see fit?

“but do not try and play blog arbiter here with me; we’ve got EPIC DALE do to that for us all.”

And you to tell us all who are the trolls and who are not. Kind of you and Mr Dale both.

8. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – “The real issue? Being allowed to peacefully demonstrate. No doubt the piece was also put up to make the point that sabotaging Copenhagen can be done with impunity but protesting against such sabotage gets you punished.”

Britain protects the right to protest peacefully. They were neither charged with or punished for doing that. Protesting is not protected, certain forms of protest are. We go out of our way to protect peaceful and legal protests. They broke the law. They were punished. Rightly. There is nothing further to say. Although the fact that they are blaming the wrong people for the failure at Copenhagen is telling in itself.

“Just because you don’t agree with the reason for protest, doesn’t make it invalid.”

Indeed. But the fact it is invalid in every sense does make it so. While the fact you agree with it does not make it right either.

Two London residents have been fined £400 by Westminster Magistrates Court for protesting against the International Chamber of Commerce in London last month.

Bullshit.

Parcel collected.

rumpypumpy:

I’ve already dealt with this, do wish you’d keep up, it has nothing to do with agreeing with the person or not, it is to do with them being trolls or trollish.

cjcjccjcjcjcjcjcjcjcjcjcj:

I have plenty to say and let us not forget that you’ve already been outed as a troll by the gentlemen that run this place. ‘Nuff said.

Twat Munro:

“Doesn’t pass the “so what ?” test for me.”

I think many of us here feel the same way about you.

Chestnut:

Please see comment 2 for ref, just change the name, you are saying the same thing.

So Much For Subtlety:

“The fact that there is no moral or political issue here…”

This is what you don’t get and glad you typed this because this makes the point far better than I could, you keep confusing your opinion, shown above with fact. I for one do not agree with that statement, as is my right but your insistence that is the only way to think is the problem and shows itself in the these flippant and off hand comments that come across to me as trolling.

Do you see how we get there?

“Or do you think that people whose politics you agree with ought to have a special dispension to break the law as they see fit?”

This also helps make the point for me, in that I never said that but you put it out there anyway, which is another troll tactic.

“And you to tell us all who are the trolls and who are not.”

Not at all, I am free to out you as a troll based on evidence and you are free to deny it or utilise the use of Red Hot Chilli Pepper song titles as you see fit.

As for your feelings about protesting, I have no idea how many you’ve been to or if you’ve been to any at all but they are many times, not at all a pleasant experience and you are not made to feel that the right you are exercising is much of a right at all add that to the silly and harmful laws invoked by New Labour and you have a very anti-public protest agenda at the moment.

Again, you confuse your prejudiced opinion of what happened with mine, you must stop doing this. To me it was a valid protest with good reason and in good context aimed at an accessible target.

“But the fact it is invalid in every sense does make it so.”

Again, you are struggling horribly with the concept of your opinion being fact, it is not, what you ascertain as facts are maters of opinion in this case and we could all benefit from a little more information on this and a lot less glib trite.

Cheers.

24. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – “This is what you don’t get and glad you typed this because this makes the point far better than I could, you keep confusing your opinion, shown above with fact. I for one do not agree with that statement, as is my right but your insistence that is the only way to think is the problem and shows itself in the these flippant and off hand comments that come across to me as trolling.”

I don’t insist there is only way of thinking. Although I can see why you would like to misrepresent this argument in such a way. Beats a logic counter argument doesn’t it? But if you don’t like it, let me rephrase it – no one has so far shown any issue here. Your opinion would be more interesting if you had managed to explain what it is precisely about this action you object to but you are concentrating on picking fights with posters which makes your credibility rather weak on all fronts. My comment may be flippant, but in fact nothing more is needed. The right to protest has not been undermined. Britain is still a free society. Two people who broke the law have been fined. Sounds like a win-win.

“This also helps make the point for me, in that I never said that but you put it out there anyway, which is another troll tactic.”

You object to two people whose views you support being convicted for breaking the law. I am confused. If you don’t support these two people’s right to break the law, what is the basis of your objection to their conviction?

“Not at all, I am free to out you as a troll based on evidence and you are free to deny it or utilise the use of Red Hot Chilli Pepper song titles as you see fit.”

As I said, we are blessed with you to label all the people you like as trolls. You did not read my comment did you? What you are not free to do is out me as anything. Because, as usual with so many people on the internet, you project your own flaws on to others. Outing implies a truth, whereas all you have is your own opinion. You confuse the two.

“As for your feelings about protesting”

Feelings you know nothing about of course.

“Again, you confuse your prejudiced opinion of what happened with mine, you must stop doing this.”

Projecting again. Sad really.

“To me it was a valid protest with good reason and in good context aimed at an accessible target.”

Good for you. It was also illegal. For which they were charged and convicted.

SMFS:

True Men Don’t Kill Coyotes.

“I don’t insist there is only way of thinking.”

Good, it is just that you are coming across like that to me. And again, it has nothing to do with counter logic, it is all to do with you thinking your way is the only way.

And keeping in mind your first offering before I prompted you into actually having to contribute something was…

“And the downside is?”

“My comment may be flippant, but in fact nothing more is needed.”

1 mark for accepting you were wrong, minus 1 mark for again confusing your own feelings that nothing more is needed with the reality that for many people that is not the case and it comes across that you are a troll.

“The right to protest has not been undermined.”

I thought you’d say this and many here, even Tories will disagree with you because they can use the draconian measures by New Labour to control protest as a beating stick to make Labour look even more draconian than they are.

:Britain is still a free society.” I never said is wasn’t although your definition fo broke the law in this case is not shared by me.

“Sounds like a win-win.” and there you go again, just to make sure we all know how you feel about the arrest and fine you get that in again…troll.

“You object to two people whose views you support being convicted for breaking the law.”

No, that is not the case because, due to the lack of information and hard fact on this story, that presumption of yours may not be a reality. Do keep up.

“You did not read my comment did you?”

Yes I did, unfortunately.

“What you are not free to do is out me as anything.”

Yes I am.

“Because, as usual with so many people on the internet, you project your own flaws on to others.”

You don’t know me or my myriad of flaws but thanks for pretending you do, I see this disconnect between opinion and ideas in your head and reality is becoming wider.

“Outing implies a truth.”

A personal truth, yes based on evidence in the first comment you left.

“Feelings you know nothing about of course.”

Based on the evidence of the comments you have left on the subject matter, than I do, unless of course you are another of those anonymous cowards that uses fake names to propagate ideas that they don’t really believe in.

There is only so far your views can be taken when hiding behind anonymity.

“Projecting again. Sad really.”

Is that all you can manage? Now that is sad.

Green Heaven.

All of this comment is a bit of a waste of time until it’s revealed what these chaps were fined for. ‘Protesting’ is not an offence (mostly), so how fair this conviction was rather depends on what these people actually did.

Using a false or nickname is a irrelevant, it’s what is written that matters.

Indeed Tim, we need some more facts.

sl:

Sorry I don’t buy that, everything is easier when hiding behind anonymity.

I don’t see Labour as being particularly “draconian” (relatively speaking) – the problem is that it legislates so broadly (and incompetently), for the sake of political expediency, auditing and control, rather than facilitating our good life, that agents of the state can be draconian, if they wish, with little and near unobtainable legal remedy available to their victims. Clark’s Law is pertinent here, I think: “sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”.

@30 Given, it’s easier to be rude or argumentative but i don’t see how it’s easier or harder to present facts and logic. Either what is written makes sense ( accepting that people have different world views) or it doesn’t.

Hump de Bump

Daniel

Have you ever asked yourself how it is that you get involved in all of this kind of abrasive argumentative nonsense?

Have you ever considered why it is that so many people seem to object to being insulted and called stupid names?

Have you ever asked yourself why stalkers follow you around cyberspace to impersonate you on blog posts and allege all sorts of personality disorders?

Have you ever considered what the common factor is in all of this?

@ Tim

Regarding why the protesters were prosecuted, it would seem that they super glued themselves to doors etc to prevent access to the building.

http://climatethieves.blip.tv/

A more interesting debate in terms of the inhibition of LAWFUL protest is the despicable banning of Anjem Choudray’s organisation and I’m a little surprised there has not been more shouting about it on this site.

pagar:

Thanks for that and I have yes, a ow tolerance threshold for bullshit on my part and the fact I actually put my name to my words, thoughts and ideas.

A novel concept to many.

Oh and pagar, glad you posted that vid because it shows not only was the protest peaceful and very polite indeed (you can even see them make way for someone leaving the building at 41 seconds in), it also looks all very LAWFUL…

Daniel,

Oh and pagar, glad you posted that vid because it shows not only was the protest peaceful and very polite indeed (you can even see them make way for someone leaving the building at 41 seconds in), it also looks all very LAWFUL…

It seems to me they’re on private property, they’ve used something to tie / attach themselves to the railings such that it needs a metalcutter to remove it, they probably disobeyed lawful instructions to move on.

Tim J covered all this earlier on – I’m not sure why you clam their protest is lawful (particularly after the fact that they were fined by a court).

Oh my there is some censorship going on here.

Earlier posts to and from Daniel regarding his tendency to call people names have been deleted.

Yesterday Google, today LiberalConspiracy – is there no end to meddling in cyberspace?

Because many elements of even a lawful protest can be construed as unlawful, depending upon whether the police or in this case the target of the protest wish to press charges on that front.

The nature of the protest was a peaceful one and the fact the target pressed charges in such a case speaks volumes about them and reminds of butterflies and wheels.

Well it’s blindingly obvious the protest was not lawful.
Better though to have left them to shiver than to arrest them, so long as people could still come and go.

There is a difference between ‘lawful’ and ‘peaceful’. The preponderance of evidence – particularly the outcome of the court case – suggests their protest was in fact unlawful, regardless of whether or not you support their cause. It therefore seems irrational to claim it was lawful.

Daniel,

You may be right that the police have too much power over lawful protest. I doubt such a distinction was correct in this case though, where what was clearly apart from anything else a fire exit (by definition the main entrance is always a fire exit) was deliberately blocked. That appears to be tresspass and possible criminal damage fairly clearly. Agree with them or not, those are the laws and if you want them changed, use the political process. Don’t argue that moral right means you can override law, because that way lies vigalanteeism and religious violence.

Bum! I left a lengthy comment which has disappeared in the miasma of a 503.

ukliberty:

there has been some confusion, I’ve not making irrational claims of lawfulness (the use of the word lawful was a parody of pagar’s heavy handed use of such) I’ve merely attempted to deflate some trollish comments and to partially fight the corner of the those willing to peacefully protest.

Watchman:

The response here, as I’ve said in another comment, was heavy handed and the pressing of charges crass considering the slippery moral high ground that the target in question reside on.

Daniel,

The morality of the victim’s stance is not relevant here. If these idiots broke the law, knowingly, they need to pay the penalty. If the people they targetted have broken a law they should be prosecuted equally. That’s how the law works, not through assessment of morality.

I am guessing is the reason this piece was put up and I’ve said it already, is that the company in question has gotten away with breaking the law and these peaceful protestors, of course, didn’t.

And morality is always relevant to me.

I am guessing is the reason this piece was put up and I’ve said it already, is that the company in question has gotten away with breaking the law and these peaceful protestors, of course, didn’t.

So to be clear.

You are GUESSING that Sunny has evidence that the International Chamber of Commerce have broken laws that (presumably because of some pernicious capitalist conspiracy) they have not been prosecuted for. And that is your moral justification for the trespass and criminal damage of the protesters.

I think you’ll agree, Daniel, that, as an argument, the above needs a bit of work?

In fact I’d say you’d be justified in concluding that it might be easier just to call me a Troll…….

Hoffman-Gill insulting people and calling people who disagree with him “trolls” in lieu of any substance?

Surely not!

pagar:

No pagar, good grief, you love taking my words and using your interpretation of them and vomiting that back out on here don’t you? That wasn’t the argument I was making on here and you know that full well.

Californication.

Rubicon:

I’ve got into the habit of not taking the words of anonymous cowards seriously, esp. when you are named after a company that makes fizzy mango juice. When you put your real name and email to your words then we’ll chat, until then, bye bye!

Daniel, what law did the company break?

The law of holding back climate talks, with the huge impact that’ll have and the greasing of a few palms and pulling of some strings.

It’s a dirty job lobbying and someone has got to do it and I appreciate these people making some tiny effort to make them accountable, actually doing something, putting themselves on the line, even if to a small degree, rather than posturing, spouting and doing nothing.

Daniel, what law did the company break?

The law of holding back climate talks…

I can’t find that in the Statute Law Database or the CPS Guidance for Crown Prosecutors, which together normally seem fairly comprehensive.

Some of the worst laws to break aren’t in any statute books and what is it with some of you guys here? It’s all very black and white, I don’t think that is at all realistic, I prefer shades of grey, clearly you don’t, that’s cool.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill:

“I’ve got into the habit of not taking the words of anonymous cowards seriously”

Then you must be the loneliest, angriest most bitter man on the internet then dude because the vast majority of people prefer to interact anonymously given the amount of crazies out there in the world, it’s a pretty darn sensible thing to do.

I see ‘coward’ seems to be a contender for your favourite word of ‘troll’, so tell us all then son, what have you ever done in your life to make you such a brave man sitting in judgement of others?

And please don’t tell us it is just putting your God damn name out on the internet!

(And by the way, you are completely wrong on the issue at hand. It was illegal and that’s that.)

Rubicon (also comes in Guava):

Sorry but no, check out my blog, I’ve gravitated towards people who don’t hide who they are and who I have met face to face or at least had some decent contact with.

Of course, there are plenty of cowards who attack those who put themselves out there but if we all keep being scared and hide away behind fake identities, then the idiots win.

Can you honestly tell me that being anonymous doesn’t effect what you write? It certainly did when I used to hide behind a made up name and proxy servers. Maybe not you but personally, I’ve had it with that and also, I can only listen so long to someone shouting from behind a wall with a balaclava on using an auto tune.

I can judge what I like, based on my experience, which you are doing little to dispel to be truthful.

Thanks for your input.

Some of the worst laws to break aren’t in any statute books

So where are they?

Who makes them?

How do I know if I’ve broken one?

Presumably they only exist as an extension of your own credo but is that not an astonishingly egotistical position to take?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill:

It was a simple question really: What have you ever done in your life to make you such a brave man to sit in judgement on the courage of others? (And pretty much everyone on this thread you label as ‘cowards’.)

And the absence of an answer clearly means sweet F.A. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. You haven’t done a damn thing. You really, honestly and actually do consider yourself to be a very brave man just for putting your God damned name out on the internet and take that as a yardstick in judgement of people’s courage. What a clueless sheltered arsehat that makes you.

You can certainly can judge what you like son, but just be wise enough to understand that you clearly don’t have the experience to judge courage and cowards, the scope of your ‘courage’ just being putting your darn name out on the internet.

I look in on this blog every now and again and more often then not it is you I see spamming the threads with nothing but troll this and coward that and insults here and there but rarely anything else. That’s why I thought I’d pitch in with the others, you know a little bit of gentle peer correction for silliness.

But clearly you such an ignorant and arrogant arse that’s no use at all, so I’ll just have to keep mentally filtering out your malicious spam on the threads as per usual.

26. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – “Good, it is just that you are coming across like that to me.”

Sorry Daniel but perhaps you can find one other person here who gives a damn what you think. You keep making stuff like that up and I am going to assume it is because you can’t find a real argument with both hands.

“And again, it has nothing to do with counter logic, it is all to do with you thinking your way is the only way.”

And again. You don’t give up that delusion easily do you?

“1 mark for accepting you were wrong, minus 1 mark for again confusing your own feelings that nothing more is needed with the reality that for many people that is not the case and it comes across that you are a troll.”

Now you’re trolling. Not very well either. I assume this is either some personal issue on your part or you want to get the site numbers up. Where did I ever accept I was wrong? Made that up didn’t you? Many people? You and whose army precisely? What is more you have yet to make a substantive point and so nothing more is needed from me. They broke the law. They were convicted. If there is anything else to say you have not said it. You have not come close to saying it. You can’t even grasp the issues involved – like the difference between lawful and peaceful.

“I thought you’d say this and many here, even Tories will disagree with you because they can use the draconian measures by New Labour to control protest as a beating stick to make Labour look even more draconian than they are.”

Good for you. You have moved on from an untrue claim about what I said to an irrelevant one. New Labour may well have imposed a lot of nasty new illiberal laws. I make no comment on that. But there is no sign that they were used here or that the right to protest, in so far as it is linked to this case, has been in any way impaired.

“I never said is wasn’t although your definition fo broke the law in this case is not shared by me.”

But then apart from insults and untrue statements, you haven’t said much. I am sure a lot of us here care what your opinion of the law is. Really I do. Deeply. But the point is, yet again, you can’t distinguish your opinion from a fact. The Courts have their own interpretation of the law, as is their constitutional right. I am afraid the law is not what you say it is, but what a judge says it is. And a judge said what they did was illegal. See the distinction between what you think and the real world?

“and there you go again, just to make sure we all know how you feel about the arrest and fine you get that in again…troll.”

You mean …. I expressed an opinion? Oh my God. The shame. How can I live with myself? Oh wait, Sunny might think that was sarcasm and hence ban it. Sorry. Better not do that again. Instead I will ask – is this your definition of a troll, someone who expresses an opinion you don’t like?

“No, that is not the case because, due to the lack of information and hard fact on this story, that presumption of yours may not be a reality. Do keep up.”

So … you do support their conviction? This is a simple either-or question Dan. It is not rocket science. Either you do support their conviction or you don’t. Whether you know jack about the issues is neither here nor there. Unless, of course, you are admitting that you don’t know jack about the case and you’re just here to spout of ill-informed opinions. Is that what you’re doing Dan? In which case wouldn’t that be, you know, trolling? And what presumption would that be? That you support their views? Do tell.

“Yes I did, unfortunately.”

Then you did not understand it. More shame on you.

“Yes I am.”

No you are not. You don’t know a damn thing about me. You cannot do much except try to smear me. It is not a hard concept I know. If you knew I was Gay and you said so in public, that would be outing me. But if you don’t know and you claim I am Gay, that is a lame smear. See the difference? Given you know nothing about me anything you say is a smear not an outing.

“You don’t know me or my myriad of flaws but thanks for pretending you do, I see this disconnect between opinion and ideas in your head and reality is becoming wider.”

I think we have all come to know you so very well these last few posts Dan. I think everyone here has a very good understanding of you and your character. But I have seen enough of your posts to understand you just do not get the distinction between truth and your opinion. I don’t need to know you personally to have noticed the half a dozen times you have done that in the last few posts.

My last comment here, as it is all getting rather ridiculous, so before I go:

I would never have commented on this thread if it wasn’t for reading SMFS dumb comment at the top and the majority of my comments have been in regard to that and issues around it. I stand by that, his first comment is dumb.

Then, for some reason, I got backed and pushed into corner by numerous commentators here showing a real black and white style of pedantic thinking with no nuance; I was backed into a corner that led me to a rather naive, moral high ground position, that I still stand by and here is why.

When I read this story and what I could of a back story, my gut feeling based on my moral compass was that I sided with the protestors, for numerous reasons but my heart did not go out to the target of the protest, esp. with the part they have played in the failure of Copenhagen and the vested, short-term interests they represent. Many of may have read the story, clearly SMFS and sided with the target; fine, that’s your moral compass and as wonky as I think it is, sure you feel the same about my affinity with the protestors.

The debate has to end there because people’s feelings are not going shift on an Internet forum are they?

So pagar, your balk and white pedantry, arguing a point to a ridiculous conclusion, I’m not going to butt heads with anymore and you talk of ‘astonishingly egotistical’ but fail to see that I am being probed on my personal take on the situation which will drive the debate further into the ego. I’ve been forced there, it is not a place I’d go willingly, hence why I’ll not comment in this thread again.

Rubicon:

Again, we are getting real personal here aren’t we? Always a good time to stop and as for your question, I don’t accept the premise and to answer it would validate it as a genuine line of enquiry wouldn’t it?

My feelings about people like you and others who use anonymity online are pretty clear, sorry if if offends you but from experience, it’s a shield that doesn’t lead to the most becoming behaviour. As for what enables me to make this judgement, I have to let you into a secret, the give away is the fact that I don’t hide away, also, you don’t need to have a medal of bravery to make such a judgement call. Just ‘cuz it get’s you all wrapped up round yourself because it challenges your own perceptions of self, deal with that yourself, not through me.

Also, to take your question, what would satisfy you as an answer? That I saved people’s lives? Put myself in danger for the safety of others? Intervened in a deadly fight? Saved a women from being attacked? I get the feeling nothing to sate your personal anger at me for calling you out for what you are. You also make the mistake, no doubt because you are sensitive on this issue, of presuming that is means the person, wholesale, is a coward. Never said that, it just makes your online behaviour cowardly and means that no one can ever really buy into your ideas fully when delivered whilst hiding.

Hope that’s clearer and if you think I’d ever take peer correction from a coward who can’t put their own name to their words, it would be like taking advice from a twat in a balaclava.

SMFS:

As I have said above, I have had to share my personal feelings because they keep getting probed so you keep getting more as by way of explanation, then you and others are complaining about the raft of my personal feelings and how they don’t matter.

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Your so called rebuttals are the equivalent of a grown man going: I CAN’T HEAR YOU at 1am in the morning, there verbosity not at all connected to the quality of their content.

It really isn’t my fault that you thought you could troll by here, then got called out and have spent a thread back tracking because you can’t accept you were wrong to be so flippant, glib and trollish. And as I say at the very top, you are on the wrong side in my opinion but, sure you’ll keep that up.

You’ll all be glad to know I’m done here and will not be reading any further comments on this, so vent until your hearts content, have the EPIC WIN of the last word and remember that you’re shouting in an empty room.

Peace.

Daniel,
22 postings on this subject alone.
Should we exhume the McWirter Brothers?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill:

OK arsehat, my name is John Walters so now we are on a level playing field according to your very cosy and sheltered definition of ‘bravery’.

Now as you equal in ‘bravery’ could you stop being such a rude, arrogant, ignorant and abrasive arse and try to comment for debate and not for argument in the future.

Thank you very much, there’s a good lad.

I was filming this action and spotted one of the officers had thumbcuffs on his belt! Did some investigating and found out some interesting stuff. http://lachevremorte.com/2010/01/11/british-police-equipped-with-thumbcuffs/

For those who are still interested, the charge was “aggravated trespass”.

“Two activists Emma Hughes and Alex Wood were arrested and charged with aggravated trespass. Today, Tuesday 12th January they were found guilty by Westminster Magistrates Court and ordered to pay a combined £400 fine (including Court fees of £200).”