1
1604
1605

David Cameron's house 'fracked' by protestors (telegraph.co.uk)

submitted by -Damien-

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]astrozombie222 552 ポイント553 ポイント

Expecting some ballsy protester diy-fracking only to discover they set up a fence and took selfies. Revolutionary.

[–]ostawookiee 56 ポイント57 ポイント

Jolly good show gents! Really set the lorry straight on that one! I shall withdraw the legislation. Queue to the left for congratulatory handshakes and crumpets.

[–]ita1y 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Dudes, form a line to my right for high fives...

[–]CakeDayisaLie 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Ladies, form a line on my left to make out!

[–]modernbenoni 30 ポイント31 ポイント

It's a solid protest. It shows that even if fracking "doesn't do any harm" to the environment (yet to be proven), it would cause great inconvenience to the people living in the areas being fracked. Obviously David Cameron would never experience this because he has the power to stop fracking under his own home, but it does give him a taste of what he want to put people through.

I too was hoping for some DIY-fracking but knew it was never likely.

[–]Loire55 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Fracking typically take places 100's of meters to kilometers below the surface. The well is drilled horizontally meaning the rig site will likely be a mile away. The crown owns all oil and gas deposits in the U.K. subsurface. How exactly does it inconvenience homeowners?

[–]RandolphHitler 0 ポイント1 ポイント

David Cameron can go frack himself !

[–]MerryWalrus -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Really? It's just another 'awareness raising' circle jerk.

[–]devilsbadvocate 7 ポイント8 ポイント

That's..exactly what a protest is..

[–]Jareth86 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Fuck making people aware of things.

[–]MerryWalrus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Really? This is just a commercialized protest to fund their marketing department.

That's what 'raising awareness' really means. I mean, fuck spending that money on researching and improving energy efficiency when you can instead buy outfits and take selfies.

[–]GregsKandy 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Going to go frack my buddies house now.

[–]androidpk 5 ポイント6 ポイント

And what ballsy act are you doing besides making fun of people actually doing something besides post on reddit?

[–]kinghfb 34 ポイント35 ポイント

This protest is better than no protest. Why would you shit on it?

[–]robb-- 124 ポイント125 ポイント

because it's Greenpeace and they thrive on misinformation and populism as much as the people they deride.

[–]02skool4kool 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Greenpeace recently did a protest in at the P&G headquarters in Cincinnati. They had twelve people posed as janitors who snuck to the upper floors of the twin skyscrapers, broke the windows, and strung a banner with a picture of a tiger between the two buildings.

What's funny is that apparently they were protesting P&G's lack of concern for tigers, but it ended up looking like P&G had just hung up a huge banner on their own of a tiger for some sort of pro-tiger reason. Greenpeace completely failed to get their point across and they all went to jail...

[–]Minotaur_in_house 27 ポイント28 ポイント

I'm not a fan of Greenpeace. Not as a whole. But in this case? The Enemy of my Enemy is my ally.

Despite Greenpeace's bad history, it's good history makes it hard to wipe off the media air waves entirely. And it won't just "go away if we ignore it" like many of the Occupy protests did. People had to get back to work.

For Greenpeace this is their work.

They might be Radical. But dedicated Radicals.

Disclaimer though: When working with Greenpeace remember it varies from office to office and sometimes the ones who go to fair seem normal.

[–]robb-- 13 ポイント14 ポイント

except their arguments here are completely shite anyway

BGS showed fracking in the UK will not produce tremors and any vibration produced will be unnoticable without actual seismic equipment

All oil and gas is property of the Crown in the UK anyway and always has been

This is like complaining there are water mains under your house.

People are running scared from something they dont understand

[–]AssSandwich 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Fracking can contaminate water tables.

[–]robb-- 5 ポイント6 ポイント

in the UK? where they're going FAR FAR FAR FAR below the water table?

[–]Bohnenbrot 0 ポイント1 ポイント

could you provide a source for that? sounds interesting. (not from the UK so I have no idea what they are doing :) )

[–]robb-- 0 ポイント1 ポイント

everything on there http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/shaleGas/basics.html

[–]Minotaur_in_house -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Hmm. I understand the reasoning. But fear is still a concern.

Environmental impact studies haven't been completed by non-partisan researchers. But a lot of people see water taps burst into flames? Of course they're confused and worried.

The responsible choice would be to cease new fraking operations and minimize current ones until research can be completed. It will either justify or pacify the crowds (there will still be all or nothing holdouts but they'll lose moderate support).

[–]robb-- 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Non-partisan? Who would you suggest over the BGS?

THE RESEARCH HAS BEEN COMPLETED, are you ignoring the BGS report for a reason?

As with every industrial operation in the UK and environmental impact will be conducted for each site. This is not the US where industrial regulation is a laughing matter.

The flaming tap thing is nothing but fearmongering and has been shown to happen before fracking even happened in that area of the US. (Stop getting facts from Gasland).

[–]MilhouseJr -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Not enough research has been done. People have every right to be scared of something that is not understood.

[–]robb-- 4 ポイント5 ポイント

They did a comprehensive research over several years.

Comparing fracking in the UK to fracking in the US is fucking stupid, enough research has been done to demonstrate it is safe to do in the UK.

It is understood, just because THEY do not understand it doesn't mean it is not understood as a technology.

[–]OCDT_Muffins 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There's over 50 years of research and implementation. And not all the wells will require fracking to extract the resources. Ironically they find a lot of these deposits because groundwater gets naturally contaminated without any help from man. I'm also not sure how a carefully engineered and heavily regulated industry in the UK is going to stop the real damage being done by Russia or China. Who have 0 interest in the environment.

[–]Stealthy_Lehninger 1 ポイント2 ポイント

They're misinformed radicals with unrealistic goals. They're anti nuclear/anti GM and general anti science stance makes zero sense.

[–]Minotaur_in_house 0 ポイント1 ポイント

They're other opinions don't discredit each other. Greenpeace has always had this eccentric way of taking up banners. And some make be responsibly seen as radical.

But looking at the single idea of this particular protest is a better frame work for context then looking at every Greenpeace Project.

To me, it's only natural to have outliers in extremes in opinions. Based on misinformation or just stubborn resolve. That's just statistics.

[–]Stealthy_Lehninger 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Point taken, but fracking isn't that harmful anyway, most scientists reckon it's not that dangerous. The reason the scientific community isn't vocal about pointing this out is that most of them don't want fracking because it's going to add to climate change.

The only argument against fracking is that it's going to contribute to climate change. All this stuff about it "causing earthquakes" or poisoning water supplies is a load of rubbish.

[–]devilsbadvocate 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I hate Greenpeace, probably more than you. But the overwhelming majority of people in the UK agree with them on this case. It's not even close. It's more a joke of representative democracy when your government passes laws that 75% of your population is against.

[–]robb-- 0 ポイント1 ポイント

How many people in that overwhelming majority understand fracking or have read the BGS report?

[–]Rockerpult_v2 12 ポイント13 ポイント

Because this is fucking stupid.

[–]Minotaur_in_house 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Stupid is doing nothing when you intensely disagree with something. And goofy, non-violent protests are fantastic! Like when they levitated the Pentagon.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/the-day-they-levitated-the-pentagon/

[–]parko4 1 ポイント2 ポイント

In your opinion it is

[–]AssSandwich 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There's nothing stupid about it.

[–]ztfreeman 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Because that's what we do here. We could take our collective voice and plan for major action and then initiate it. There is nothing stopping us from doing that. Right this very second you and I and another and another could say right here and right now that we will form a political party that addresses all of the issues we collectively worry about. We could open up a kick starter to raise money for it and set up a subreddit to gather supporters and create a website with a map linked to account info to find local, state, and federal representatives to run for us and back them and take back the US and any democratized country.

But we aren't going to do that, because the moment I suggest it one fuckhead who has nothing better to do with his time, ether because he is paid to derail such initiative or just because he is an asshole, will come behind us and tell us it isn't worth it. It will never work and we are wasting our time. It's called Poison Person Syndrome and it destroys productivity and initiative. They weed it out of successful businesses because you just can't get anything done around one person who will demotivate a group.

And it's so stupid that we do this. This asshole has everything to gain by trying and nothing to lose by working with us. The efforts he puts into being a fuckwad could have easily been put towards working on actual solutions and helping out. But no, instead he makes the one stupid move because he could have saved himself time if he thought it was hopeless and not said anything at all. After all, that would be the real move if he really believed that. But no, just like Sinatra said some people get their kicks by stepping on another man's dream, and that's what its all about. That little bit of ego masterbation in knowing that you are such a worthless douchnozzel that you can't bring anything positive to the world, but you can crush someone else's motivation and bring everyone else down with you. And these days governments and companies will find these people and sometimes pay them to do just that so we can't effect change.

And that's why you can't actually get anything done on Reddit. It's not all of the time you waste on porn and cats, its the fact that there are enough of these dickholes to kill any forward initiative to start to build the engine to make change happen.

[–]fliip 0 ポイント1 ポイント

This ^

[–]modernbenoni 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Yeah no need to attack the protesters just because the headline/title was a little sensationalised. At least they did something

[–][deleted]

[deleted]

    [–]TheJulian 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Well we're talking about it aren't we?

    [–]rmwebs -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    Not in a positive way. We're talking about how poorly executed their 'protest' was...not how it's made the government do a U turn on policy.

    [–]AssSandwich 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    You're talking about how poorly executed it was.

    Most people are amused. And I didn't know about this Parliament bill, now I do.

    [–]Minotaur_in_house 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    I don't believe there is one large scale event that can cause imediate change without there being even worse ramifications.

    Take a look at MLK. There were a lot, thousands national(not all by him of course), that lead up to the Million Man March.

    Small things that humanize the issue (make it seem less surrounded by obscurity and the iron curtain of Lawyers and lobbying) can never be counter intuitive. Even if someone laughs it off. They are laughing at the issue to.

    [–]rmwebs -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    The something they did had absolutely no positive impact. Seriously what would the PM do after watching that? Do people think for a second he'd do ANYTHING other than laugh? No fucking way.

    It was pathetic. Chaining themselves to his door knocker would have more of a bloody impact than this.

    [–]AssSandwich 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    The media reported it. What do you think they were trying to do? Have Cameron say "Golly, I suppose I have been wrong"? No, their goal is to increase the visibility of the cause.

    [–]IAmNotAPerson6 9 ポイント10 ポイント

    Because reddit despises protests.

    [–]doctordestroyer 25 ポイント26 ポイント

    Yea it reminds me that I never do anything about all the things I complain about on here.

    [–]Minotaur_in_house -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    Half does. The other half doesn't. Half hate cops, the other half doesn't.

    It's like it's made from diverse opinions!

    Not taking a jab at you. Just pointing this out for others.

    [–]anonomousrex 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Well you see... many redditors have not so great lives. They are very lonely because of the pervasive negativity that bleeds through everything they do. To them a temporary respite to this condition is to shit on other people anonymously. Elevating themselves high above others by talking down on the positive things people are actually doing. By simply writing a non-constructive sentence on the internet.

    Unfortunately the effect doesn't linger, even if you got a lot of karma from it.

    [–]MDef255 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    Probably not so much shitting on the protest itself as his dashed hopes.

    [–]HR_8938_Cephei -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Because he's a shill.

    [–]cuminmynun -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Is it?

    He wasn't' even there

    [–]streams28 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    They're a bunch of fucking amateurs

    [–]trai_dep 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    So are you just whining or are you doing something better? If so, please share!

    [–]Oh_Daesu -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    Doing nothing is arguably better than doing such a shit PR stunt that it puts people off supporting your cause.

    [–]trai_dep 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    Ah. So impotently whining it is!

    [–]MasterMachiavel 4 ポイント5 ポイント

    Oh yeah, because everyday protesters really have access to that kind of machinery. I don't know if you know the definition of protest, it's more a symbolic form of pointing out if a policy is wrong. Look at Gandhi, all he did was literally go to the sea, scoop up some salt and start using it without paying the British tax for it, but that was still powerful from a 'symbolic' point of view.

    This protest isn't even about being pro-fracking, or anti-fracking, it is about people's right to CHOOSE if they want fracking, and if you actually saw that the British Parliament is passing a law to deny people the right to choose if they want fracking near them(or even under their house), you would realise they're doing a shitload more than other people who aren't imposing any form of checks on the fracking companies.

    [–]MrJohz -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Did you just compare fracking to British colonial rule? Because I'm quite sure there's a few differences here...

    EDIT: In actual response to your comment, you've got to remember that this is populist fear-mongering, and to a certain extent, if people want to act like children then the state probably ought to act like their parents sometimes. I mean, that doesn't necessarily mean the state should take away people's rights in this particular case (and I'd love to see a source for your claim about the law that's doing so), but in this circumstance the complainants almost universally are refusing to engage with the facts.

    There are some problems with fracking, not least that it's continuing to promote the culture of oil dependence, but the reality is that we can't go cold turkey, and states need to have some control over the oil supply to their nation. Currently we're not doing very well on that count in the UK. Sure, we should be switching to renewables, but at the moment renewables just don't cut it when powering an entire country, what with needing to rebuild the infrastructure of pretty much everything.

    [–]MasterMachiavel 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    No, my point was about the 'magnitude' of the protest for it to be effective. A protest can be some grand march to Washington, demanding civil liberties and freedom, or it can be imitating the downfalls of a particular policy to make a point(here it is ringfencing the Prime Minister of Britain's own home to show 'what if it were YOUR home').

    Besides, if protests get too violent, all of a sudden, it becomes terrorism, and people tune out because they dislike those who use fear or violence to get their way.

    [–]MrJohz 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Yes, but comparing Ghandi's protest to these is silly. Ghandi's protest worked so well because an entire nation could rally around it, and it made those in charge feel uncomfortable, because it was a righteous cause. This protest just makes everyone feel a bit silly.

    That's what the big difference here is.

    [–]MasterMachiavel 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    I'm not comparing this to Gandhi's protests...I'm talking about what defines an EFFECTIVE protest. As for your argument about a 'righteous cause', many people back in Gandhi's time didn't even think it was a righteous cause(Churchill despised him outright for advocating for national independence, DESPITE also fighting against Nazi domination, hence there is no 'black and white' case of what everyone agrees as good), so that means protest doesn't have to be universally accepted to be just in some objective sense.

    Not every credible and justifiable protest needs to be about freeing people from servitude, this is about a 'Deus Ex' style future we are entertaining where corporations have more power than our governments, to dictate the choices that private citizens make. I'm sorry if I'm not as keen as that, in the same way I'm not overly keen on a future where the state rules the people rather than people ruling the state.

    [–]devilsbadvocate 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    No he didn't, if you had even the most basic skills of reading English.

    [–]troubleondemand 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    Says the redditor from his living room.

    [–]dangerNDAmanger 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Well, at least the title put single quotes around 'fracked'. I too was expecting actual vandalism to some degree. I don't know much about English law, but this seems ridiculous to me. People like to bitch about the USA legal system all the time, but something like this would likely never happen because we have property protection in the form of due process.

    [–]tmaspoopdek 4 ポイント5 ポイント

    This has already happened in the US

    FTFY

    [–]BDJ56 7 ポイント8 ポイント

    Weeeell, a lot of national parks are already being fracked and with there's still a lot of controversy of using eminent domain to help private companies. Also, the government could say they can use eminent domain to help fracking companies because natural gas is in the nation's "best interests".

    [–]Ultrace-7 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    there's still a lot of controversy of using eminent domain to help private companies.

    Source, please.

    [–]Thunder_Bastard -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Instead of simply taking the jackass way out of asking for a "source"... why not source your own rebuttal to disprove his claim?

    This trend of "OMG SOURCE" demands on reddit are getting really sad. YOU don't know one way or the other, so you demand someone educate you on the subject because YOU don't know.

    [–]Putzpie 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    The onus is in the person making the claim to present the evidence, and I haven't checked his post history, but I don't even think he's disagreeing, but like any right minded scientific individual he wants more proof than some random redditor's word on it.

    So don't be a prick about it and just show him the money

    [–]Thunder_Bastard 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    This ins't a fucking thesis or scientific paper... it is an internet forum. No one has an onus to do anything.

    Reddit is plagued with people making bullshit claims.... fine, it is a forum. But you can also say "most grass is green" and a flock of little shits will run in and demand citations and sources and that you PROVE to them that the statement is true.

    there's still a lot of controversy of using eminent domain to help private companies

    ... is not a hard statement to understand. Imminent domain has been controversial since it was first introduced. It has been controversial since first used to help privately held companies. You can literally Google "imminent domain controversy" and get ALL KINDS of stories if you want "proof" that it is controversial.

    But instead peole like him just take the lazy fucking way out to try and sound smart and say "source". The reason people like him do it is because if someone does provide sources then they win, if they don't then they think they are proven right.

    This is reddit, a fucking internet forum. The burden of proof is on the asshole that wants to know more about a subject. No one here is you mommy or daddy or works for you, no one owes you anything.

    [–]Wizzad 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    If he is more knowledgeable on the subject, he can share a source.

    There are plenty of blogs or w/e that spam bullshit or even paid to spam misinformation, so it's nice when someone knowledgeable can point to a reputable source.

    For instance if

    [–]Coolguy134 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Well when someone makes a bold claim it would be nice if they were to source where they got that knowledge from, or they are just talking bullshit. I don't see whats wrong with asking for a source sometimes.

    [–]Thunder_Bastard 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    "Bold claim"?

    "Imminent domain is controversial" is a bold claim?

    Wow.

    [–]Samnoname 10 ポイント11 ポイント

    Fracking is already happening nationwide in the US

    [–]02skool4kool 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    It depends on what state you are in. In a place like Oklahoma mineral rights are completely separate from surface property rights so normally you don't own both and if an oil company owns the mineral rights under your property all they have to do is compensate you the value of your surface property and then they can start drilling there.

    [–]LegendarySuffering 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    There are rights here too, which the government wants to revoke because they don't benefit their friends and financers.

    Allegedly.

    [–]noxumida 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    but something like this would likely never happen because we have property protection in the form of due process.

    Except that it's already happening. Have you not seen news stories of people's tap water catching on fire due to the contamination from fracking?

    [–]cuminmynun 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States

    [–]Thunder_Bastard 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Yup.

    Remember 9/11? Remember that massive "memorial" they wanted to build out in the woods of PA?

    They want 2,200 acres... a massive plot of land. When they made a shitty offer for the land the owners refused but stayed open to negotiation. Then the government stepped in and said they will simply use imminent domain to take the land. 2,200 fucking acres to immortalize where some cunt made a plane crash.

    Nothing like celebrating freedom by having your land forcibly taken.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/911-memorial-good-eminent-domain-abuse-bad

    [–]dangerNDAmanger 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Find me one example where mineral rights have been severed to benefit a private energy company in the U.S. Eminent domain is generally used for government projects and cannot be used to benefit private companies.

    Not only that, but people who have property taken by eminent domain are compensated at market value for the resources, incident to a government seizure, such as any oil, gas, timber, and other minerals that may be on the land needed for the government project. My best friend's family had property seized by eminent domain to build a highway, and they were compensated for all minerals on and under their land, not just a paltry statutory maximum.

    [–]CFGX 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    Eminent domain is generally used for government projects and cannot be used to benefit private companies.

    cough

    [–]dangerNDAmanger 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Pulled right from the page you linked: As of June 2012, 44 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. The law has changed in 44/50 states in response to this type of case and is a complete minority opinion. Also if you read the case, the Court seized the land for government interests, not for a private company. The land was seized to eliminate blight and increase tax revenues from increased economic activity, a government interest, the benefit to the private company was an ancillary benefit.

    [–]cuminmynun 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    To what depth?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/09/us-usa-fracking-rights-specialreport-idUSBRE9980AZ20131009

    [–]Cammorak 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    How is the mineral and other natural resource value calculated in these cases? I mean, 10 years ago, they probably wouldn't have compensated people for frackable shale deposits.

    [–]StaticMachine 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Just because your house is built on it doesn't mean you own the mineral rights in that tract of land. The people who own the rights can lease them to a production company without your consent. This is true here, so the UK isn't doing anything that the rest of the world hadn't already done.

    [–]astrozombie222 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Their cops don't even carry guns right? You wouldn't want to risk having a whistle blown at you I suppose...

    [–]WhiskeyWomanizer 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    pretty sure if they blew holes in the side of his house and pumped it full of sand this would be getting more media attention.

    [–]BP_Public_Relations 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    It would be nice if more protesters adopted this methodology.

    [–]UnEntitled -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

    Right, cause you would totally risk significant jail time to just send a message.

    Idiot.

    [–]OmniscientOctopode 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    How many of these protestors got arrested?

    [–]UnEntitled 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    None. He's saying he was expecting some people to actually set up a real fracking station and actually frack the land. I can't even begin to list the charges they would face, but of course reddit agrees.

    [–]SoSimPo1 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    They wouldn't even be able to rent the equipment to do that anyway.

    [–]UnEntitled 5 ポイント6 ポイント

    Exactly.

    [–]OmniscientOctopode 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Ah. Thought you were referring to any kind of protesting. My bad.

    [–]Crash665 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Oh, man! I can't wait for the pictures of the protestors holding up hand written messages on a piece of paper! That'll show them what for. To the Tumblr Weapon!

    [–]Megaross -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    I was hoping they blew it up with him inside it, and he suffered.

    A lot, like I mean his dick got blown off and he bled out after watching his entire family die.