• piezoelectron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I want to say this makes me happy but who am I kidding, the Met’s obviously saying this to justify demanding more police funding.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean…good? People work with oil because it’s cheap. If protests are a way of making it costly, then it’s doing its job.

    Why is the default thought to just “Wait until the protests are over”?

  • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Met tries to distract from its own horrendous recent record, while pitching for yet more power to clamp down on whoever they feel like”

  • BobApril@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s still got to be orders of magnitude less than the externalized costs of the oil companies in the same time period - even just counting the costs to the UK gov’t and population.

    • venuswasaflytrap@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Definitely - but that’s 15% of the Mets budget. Screwed up as it is, it’s also underfunded, and the result is that Londoners who are most affected by crime - predominantly low-income - will pay for this