Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Scores of SUVs have tyres deflated by activists
clive
Posts: 19,563
Climate activists have deflated the tyres of scores of SUVs across parts of London overnight.
Notes have been left by the group - Tyre Extinguishers - on the sports utility vehicles apologising for targeting the "gas guzzler" cars.
Thought to be a splinter group of Extinction Rebellion, it said it wanted to "make it impossible to own an SUV in the UK's urban areas".
Vehicles in Chelsea, Chiswick, Notting Hill and Belgravia have been targeted.
Other areas in the capital said to be hit included Harley Street, Hampstead Heath and Clapham.
0
Comments
-
Dickheads
there are loads of reasons people have larger vehicles nowadays and their emissions and fuel consumption are not a great deal Different to some cars.12 -
Would laugh if the arseholes got caught doing it to a car owned by Eastern European mafia.
1 -
Because the disposal of old, and manufacture of new tyres is so environmentally friendly.
6 -
I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed.
The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019.
I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends.
Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’.
In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division.
I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched.
Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to.
Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.10 -
Happening down here in Brighton & Hove as well. They’ve even been doing it to electric vehicles so the ‘gas guzzling’ argument doesn’t really work. Wankers.4
-
It is true that you can get 1 litre SUVs which are economical but I wouldn't advise anybody to. It is ok when nothing goes wrong but down the line they will be more difficult and expensive to repair. Of course not all SUVs are of the small engined variety so if you mash them up together I would expect them to use more fuel than small to medium cars.Swisdom said:Dickheads
there are loads of reasons people have larger vehicles nowadays and their emissions and fuel consumption are not a great deal Different to some cars.
My objection with them is that I think they are ugly. And I accept some of the other points on their leaflet. They can be like tanks and must be more dangerous to the other car/pedestrian in an accident and they possibly make the driver feel more secure with the potential to be more dangerous in the way they drive.
I have been interested in car design since I was a kid and my two heroes are Harris Mann and Giugiaro. I always veered to the mass production smaller cars as they were far more interesting in how problems were solved like getting as much space into a small car and maintaining style. SUVs have turned me off cars and I do think there is a vanity element of my car is bigger than you car where I would prefer it to be, my car is prettier than your car, so I am clearly not against people factoring aesthetics into their decision.
It annoys me when I am driving in country roads and I have some tank going the other way which I have to navigate past. But it is wrong to let down tyres and people should be persuaded through debate rather than actions like these, even if they are prefereable to damaging the car more significantly.3 -
Where were these people when Amis and Southall "bought" those range rovers?
26 -
Interesting points. Great lurch forward= Brexit , am I correct?seth plum said:I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed.
The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019.
I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends.
Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’.
In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division.
I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched.
Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to.
Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
The Conservatives won a landslide with 43% of the popular vote so a majority of those who voted 57% did not get the result they wanted.
Seems like this alone might cause disenchantment.
2 million voted Green, to get 1 MP and only 38,000 voters are needed to elect a Conservative.Hence a landslide.
Good job we can laugh at them without being locked up or shot.
As for SUV activists-not really in favour of what they are doing but I understand their frustration.
15 -
Bunch of tossers, hope I catch somebody doing it.2
-
In terms of the SUV’s it once again brings up the quote by Samuel Beckett I posted on the Insulate Britain thread. Beckett said (or asked) ‘was ever such rightness joined to such foolishness’?KingKinsella said:
Interesting points. Great lurch forward= Brexit , am I correct?seth plum said:I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed.
The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019.
I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends.
Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’.
In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division.
I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched.
Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to.
Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
The Conservatives won a landslide with 43% of the popular vote so a majority of those who voted 57% did not get the result they wanted.
Seems like this alone might cause disenchantment.
2 million voted Green, to get 1 MP and only 38,000 voters are needed to elect a Conservative.Hence a landslide.
Good job we can laugh at them without being locked up or shot.
As for SUV activists-not really in favour of what they are doing but I understand their frustration.
If I comment any more about your excellent post I fear my pile on stalkers will accuse me of derailing the thread and demand a ban.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think their efforts would be better employed by standing in front of Russian tanks. Those engines really chuck it out.10
-
On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?0
-
I have a Nissan X-trail so it’s an SUV. The engine size is 1.3 so hardly a gas guzzler. I just hope they know what’s what and don’t just target SUV’s that they think are gas guzzlers0
-
Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.1
-
Fingers crossed they get wiped out by a silent electric car at some stage.3
-
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."seth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
1 -
"Such support". You mean a handful of people who suggest that there may be other responses than the "I hope I catch them at it I'd give them what for" type of response that always crops up when things like this get raised? I thought the posts by Seth, KingK and Muttley contained clear and reasonable arguments.Chippycafc said:Bloody arseholes, i have never understood why there is such support for criminals by some (same) quarters on this forum, perhaps when something like this effects them they may have a different view.11 -
Read the letter they are leaving on cars - definitely not a mistake.JamesSeed said:
Evidence? You’d have to be a real fruit loop to attack cars with zero emissions. Or a mistake maybe?arny23394 said:Happening down here in Brighton & Hove as well. They’ve even been doing it to electric vehicles so the ‘gas guzzling’ argument doesn’t really work. Wankers.2 -
Just asking if they’ve left letters on electric vehicles. Where’s the evidence?arny23394 said:
Read the letter they are leaving on cars - definitely not a mistake.JamesSeed said:
Evidence? You’d have to be a real fruit loop to attack cars with zero emissions. Or a mistake maybe?arny23394 said:Happening down here in Brighton & Hove as well. They’ve even been doing it to electric vehicles so the ‘gas guzzling’ argument doesn’t really work. Wankers.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Field day for lawyers.thenewbie said:
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."seth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury.
Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury.
I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp.
I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence?
People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers?
I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?1 -
I don't agree. The 1970s were very divided - lots of strikes, very bad racism, lots of vadalism. Things improved a lot in the 1990s but appear to be on a downward spiral at the moment fuelled by social media. No reason to anticipate it won't turn again - throughout history chesion as ebbed and flowed.seth plum said:I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed.
The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019.
I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends.
Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’.
In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division.
I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched.
Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to.
Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.5 -
Deffo Criminal Damage CD Act 1971 Section 1, in a nutshell by letting the tyres down, the tyre has been 'damaged', in that the original purpose for which it has been designed and fitted, cannot now be usedseth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?1 -
So you’d be ok if someone burgled you and their defence was they were going to return the items in future?seth plum said:
Field day for lawyers.thenewbie said:
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."seth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury.
Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury.
I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp.
I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence?
People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers?0 -
I didn’t say that did I?paulbaconsarnie said:
So you’d be ok if someone burgled you and their defence was they were going to return the items in future?seth plum said:
Field day for lawyers.thenewbie said:
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."seth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury.
Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury.
I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp.
I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence?
People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers?
However I know for a fact that the argument that there was no intent to permanently deprive has got somebody off a theft charge.0 -
Does every country have nutters like this, or is it just us?1
-
Yes you have a point regarding the seventies.Jints said:
I don't agree. The 1970s were very divided - lots of strikes, very bad racism, lots of vadalism. Things improved a lot in the 1990s but appear to be on a downward spiral at the moment fuelled by social media. No reason to anticipate it won't turn again - throughout history chesion as ebbed and flowed.seth plum said:I suppose types of direct action increases when the social contract amongst people is diminished, or destroyed.
The cohesion of British society has been steadily deteriorating since around 1979 and the great lurch forward was cemented in in 2016 and 2019.
I feel those in power will become increasingly draconian in order to shape things to their ends.
Hopefully they won’t manage it long term because as Orwell said ‘no bomb that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit’.
In the meantime we are condemned to suffer the pain of division.
I suppose in a divided society there is little to lose by doubling down and becoming entrenched.
Speaking personally, judging by what some fellow Addicks post on here, there are people and attitudes out there that I could never ever reconcile to.
Direct action is something that manifests division and it may be all there is left to do in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
I suppose I might (mistakenly?) see those times as more about majority verses minority rather than the type of divided society we have now.
What do you think might restore cohesion in the future?0 -
Cohesion ......... Treating each other with respect and not letting someone else's tyres down!
There was a lady on twitter this morning with an electric Merc SUV and a note on her screen as to why they had let the tyres down, you'd at least of thought these 'activists' would know an electric from a diesel/petrol.3 -
Treating each other with respect is a huge ask in many circumstances.
Leaving aside how respectful treatment might be defined, how would society acquire the tools for treating others with respect?
There are plenty of politicians I have seen and will never have respect for.
With them it is action and reaction.
Maybe there is a way I don’t get.1 -
You are way out of date, mate. Clamping on private land became illegal ten years ago. In any event, letting down your own tyres is perfectly legal. What isn't is damaging a wheel clamp by, for example, taking an angle grinder to it or using a bolt cutter to remove any padlock*. As that would be criminal damage. (But there wouldn't be a "sympathetic jury" or any jury for that matter - it would go before a Magistrate).seth plum said:
Field day for lawyers.thenewbie said:
No one specific law apparently but several different charges can be laid against those who do it, i.e. Criminal damage or something called "the road traffic act 1988" : "A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause ... interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle."seth plum said:On a technical point, what law does letting down tyres of a stationary or parked vehicle break?
Criminal damage is going to be hard to establish, especially if there is a sympathetic jury.
Reasonable cause is another concept to throw at a jury.
I imagine there have been circumstances (possibly on private land as well) where the driver of a clamped car has let down the tyre to remove the clamp.
I don’t know if that is or isn’t an offence. Indeed if the protestors clamped the vehicles instead of letting down the tyre would that be an offence?
People get clamped in dubious circumstances all the time, would clampers generally be classed as law breakers?
I believe one aspect of theft is ‘intent to permanently deprive’, so if a clamper, or ‘air stealer’ says they will return some unspecified time in the future to pump up the tyres, or remove a clamp when they deem it to be convenient for them, are they still criminal when they argue it is a temporary measure?
In any event the Govt. especially the local Govt in London, is responsible for the popularity of SUVs. There is no other way to comfortably traverse a speed bump around Charlton and Greenwich. I used to drive small low cars but the speed bumps are often capable of taking the bottom out of the oil sump, so I've gone large.
BTW, many road humps in the RBG are illegal in that they do not comply with The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999.
*Many padlocks - no matter how expensive - can be easily removed with nothing more than a drink can and a pair of scissors without causing damage to the padlock. Look it up on YouTube.
Edited to add: there are also "anti-theft" dust caps which are difficult to remove unless your average eco-warrior has a little "going equipped" kit; might be time to invest in some.0
