basically, the activist places a mung bean in the dust cap of a car tyre, and then screws the cap back on. repeat x4. this depresses the valve, releasing the air in the tyre gradually while the activist escapes.

So you let down some tyres and the owners/drivers will use an electric pump to re-inflate them adding to pollution.

Was it such a good trick?

[insert generic nay-sayer argument here*]

*Examples: you vandalised x with paint, so you are supporting the multinationals who make the paint; you set fire to x, but that causes pollution; you walked/drove/cycled to your action therefore you support the roads you say you are opposing; etc. ad nauseam.

I hope the old bastard is charged

"Examples: you vandalised x with paint, so you are supporting the multinationals who make the paint; you set fire to x, but that causes pollution; you walked/drove/cycled to your action therefore you support the roads you say you are opposing; etc. ad nauseam."

I agree, vandalising cars is counterproductive, they will only be replaced through insurance thus increasing carbon emissions.

The best idea would be to kill said person who causes the pollution, the carbon emissions of a funeral would be far less than replacing a car.


Hmmm, maybe letting the tyres down wasn't such a bad idea after all.

You should eat them afterwards and mulch up the left-overs for fertiliser.

Just like the way people aren't comfortable wearing fur in the UK cities, by the sabotaging of coats (chewing gumming etc), people will be deterred from buying 4x4s as ecotage against them increase. Where's fur now...? Where SUVs will be in a few years - rotten and forgotten.

Keep up the resistance!!

So what is going on here is that you think it is acceptable to punish, or coerce, or encourage those who do (in your eyes) wrong (pollute the environment, and display wealth and prosperity in an ostentatious way) by, in this case, vandalising their property. Now, aside from the obvious, serious, dangers to this (rich sod gets in car, doesn't realise tyres are deflating, tyre blows out - rich sod dies), I was under the impression that there was one body that had the right to coerce us into doing things we don't agree with.

The government. That's what laws are for. We don't agree with some things, we don't like some things, but we are forced to abide by rules (the law) for the good of society.

If you think the government is failing in it's duty to protect society (from the evils of pollution and rich people) then exercise your democratic right, and vote. Simple as that.

The reason what you did was wrong, was because you took the moral code into your own hands. You think the rest of society should behave as you see fit, and you don't give the rest of society a chance to have their say.

Crumbs. What would happen if you were in government? Making society behave as you see fit without letting them have a chance to have their voice heard? Sounds rather dictatorial to me.

"Now, aside from the obvious, serious, dangers to this (rich sod gets in car, doesn't realise tyres are deflating, tyre blows out - rich sod dies), "

Obvious and serious or completely imaginary and laughable ? Tyres don't blow out when they are deflating, they blow out when they are over-inflated and puncture. You would need to carry a foot-pump and over-inflate all the tyres instead of deflating them if you wanted blow-outs. Deflating tyres actually grip the road better.

As for the rest of your Judge Dread lecture on submission to the state, you adopt the position if you want.

I was under the impression that there was one body that had the right to coerce us into doing things we don't agree with. NOT THE RIGHT, THE AUTHORITY. DIFFERENT THINGS

The government. That's what laws are for. We don't agree with some things, we don't like some things, but we are forced to abide by rules (the law) for the good of society. SOUNDS A BIT LIKE: "Making society behave as you see fit without letting them have a chance to have their voice heard? Sounds rather dictatorial to me." A FEW THOUSAND VOTES DETERMINE THE ELECTIONS, SO ABOUT 98% OF THE ELECTORATE HAVE NO 'VOICE', NO INFLUENCE OVER THE OUTCOME....

If you think the government is failing in it's duty to protect society (from the evils of pollution and rich people) then exercise your democratic right, and vote. Simple as that. SEE ABOVE

The reason what you did was wrong, was because you took the moral code into your own hands. You think the rest of society should behave as you see fit, and you don't give the rest of society a chance to have their say. SEE KANT ON THE 'CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE', THE MOST DENSELY ARGUED RATIONAL ETHICAL PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR CAPACITY FOR REASON AS THE ONLY 'BASE' (NOT INCLUDING SUPERSTITION OR RELIGIOUS TRADITION) FOR ESTABLISHING THE 'RIGHT' THING TO DO, INCLUDING DISOBEYING 'WRONG' LAWS.

Crumbs. What would happen if you were in government? SOME FORM OF ECO-FASCISM MAY END UP THE ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE THE PLANET AS HABITABLE, HOPE I'M NOT AROUND THEN! TRY TO DO SOME READING THAT ISN'T THE MAIL...;-)