Process To Outlaw Protest + New Green Laws

[Baron von Lotsov]

Indeed, specifically the poor, but not the rich or their friends and relatives.

Lets be more specific, not the ones helping to achieve this agenda.



These would include Sir Christopher Hohn and  Baron Malloch-Brown.



Other rich would include those in government jobs further down the line. There might even be those who run Public Private Partnerships as well, but the independent rich successful self-made man who runs his own industry will be a thing of the past. Capitalism is being outlawed. It's almost impossible to produce a lot of industrial products without some monopolising corporation claiming patent infringement. It's just one of the details of course, which means in theory you could set up a capitalist business, but in practice you'll be gunned down. Huawei is a classic example of a totally independent capitalist business. I've done a study on it and seen what they haver to put up with. If commercial cheating wont work they will arrest your daughter on Trumped up charges (excuse the pun!).

[Borchester]

I'm sure some people thought I was crazy, but I've been saying for some time that the government is trying to ban protest, and will adopt laws to deal with 'emergency climate action'.

I don't think you are crazy and every government since the year dot has wanted to ban protests, but the real question is how?



The demos of the 60s were quite small and the police met them with horses and batons and had a job containing them. Later on they realised that all they could really do was keep an eye on things. The point to remember is that the organisers of any protest secretly want a ban and a violent reaction from the authorities. That gets a hell of a lot more publicity than the usual rent a mob waving banners in Trafalgar Square

[johnofgwent]

The fact is, the police already have the right to ban protests that cause a certain amount of disruption, have had that right ever since Tony Blair was caught with his trousers down over fuel price protests in 2001,and the so called "right" of expression in the HRA **CAN** be curtailed by the state.



Fact is the state only listens to people who have shown a willingness to kill people to get their political goal achieved, so why those who are only prepared to be a bloody nuisance think they should get in this exclusive (for the moment) club beats me

[Scott777]

The plot is to substantially reduce the world's population.

Indeed, specifically the poor, but not the rich or their friends and relatives.

[Baron von Lotsov]

"The regulator's powers will cover climate change legislation and hold the Government to account on the legal commitment to cut greenhouse gases to net zero by 2050, working alongside the existing advisory Committee on Climate Change."



The basic idea is the same as Saddam's WMDs.  Create the threat, provide the solution, profit from the solution.  It's all fitting into place.

I've known this date for a long time. Once I did a whole load of research into global governance and from that it appears the 2050 date was decided years and years ago and way before the beginning of the new century. The bottom line is this. The world's resources are finite and population increases exponentially. The plot is to substantially reduce the world's population. I've even heard figures as low as one billion. It depends on who you hear it from, and much info in inference, but this 2050 date is their target for accomplishing it. This is why they promote homosexuality, and regarding the exponential rise in populations of any organism, the exponential curve wills start to flatten out as the food supply limits it. You need energy to make fertiliser and this produces CO2. Get it. Expect food prices to rise substantially in the next few decades and expect the food to contain less and less calories (calories = measure of energy in the food).

[Scott777]

I'm sure some people thought I was crazy, but I've been saying for some time that the government is trying to ban protest, and will adopt laws to deal with 'emergency climate action'.



"The regulator's powers will cover climate change legislation and hold the Government to account on the legal commitment to cut greenhouse gases to net zero by 2050, working alongside the existing advisory Committee on Climate Change."



The basic idea is the same as Saddam's WMDs.  Create the threat, provide the solution, profit from the solution.  It's all fitting into place.





As for the ban, I think it's mostly nonsense, because peaceful protest is protected by the ECHR.  But that won't stop police from arresting protesters, including Brexiters.  They will deal with laws soon enough.



Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor: "The policing operation continues, and we will continue to take action against anyone engaged in unlawful protests at locations targeted by Extinction Rebellion."



In effect, that's two objectives achieved by the XR organisers.  Pressure to justify green laws + justification to ban protest.



https://news.sky.com/story/legally-binding-pollution-targets-outlined-in-environment-bill-11835979">https://news.sky.com/story/legally-bind ... l-11835979">https://news.sky.com/story/legally-binding-pollution-targets-outlined-in-environment-bill-11835979



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50051279">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50051279