-
I think if you were trying to get to a hospital, maybe to see an oncologist, and were prevented from doing so by some retired geography teacher from Guildford asserting their right to glue themselves to a pedestrian crossing, you might think they were being self-indulgent.
Jingle_Jangle-
Wait till you hear about the tube strike.
-
That's OK - you can run them over with your Range Rover, then grift off the sweet merch deal.
-
I mean, aside from the fact that inconvenience you is basically what a protest is meant to do, there are many alternative routes from there to St Thomas's and your ad hominem attack is irrelevant.
What you're saying is you don't think their cause is important / pressing enough to warrant the action. Don't wrap it up in pretending to care for a hypothetical cancer patient so it divests you of any responsibility for you opinion.
to be clear, I also think that protest achieved nothing, but I think their actions has the possibility to lay the founding blocks of something that might change things. so even if they're a bunch of unbearable middle class crusties from the home counties we should warrant them their opinions and use it as a chance consider what we could do to alter our thinking and actions for the better
-
So if Ghandi et al made someone late for a medical appointment they were self indulgent?
They should have put on a concert instead?
-
You might want to have a read of the bombings/attempted bombings carried out by the suffragettes in 1913 alone then consider whether you need to gain a bit more perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suffragette_bombings#1913
edscoble
villa-ru
fredtc
dancing james
Fox
Am not sure protesting environmental issues that are affecting everyone is self indulgent. Do you consider Ghandi, the suffragettes, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela etc etc to be self indulgent?