BS: Direct Action : UK

Subject: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM

For those familiar with notion of 'Disaster Capitalism' as it is described by Naomi Klein, the current govts wave of policies won't be so shocking. This recession is arguably a prime opportunity to push through shed-loads of unpopular decisions that the public are as yet too phased to respond to with effective dissent, or indeed even appropriate questions.

Anyhow, rather than grumbling about it, here's a thread for suggestions on how those of us interested can begin to suggest options on how to mobilise dissenting action.

As an aside, it's a bummer this topic is too far outside the remit of FAF, as the organisation is already in place and arguably already pools many of those folkies & activists who would oppose much of what is currently happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

Crow Sister
"to mobilise dissenting action"

And what exactly does that mean, Voilence or peaceful lobbying?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM

"Voilence or peaceful lobbying?"

What do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:32 AM

Well I do not support voilence in any form.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:35 AM

Peacefully, if the Lib-Dem leadership were convinced they would be wiped off the political map by continuing to support the coalition it ought to make a difference

Their opinion poll rating has already dropped from 27% at the election to 11% now

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

Naomi Klein says...

"At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq's civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country's vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the "War on Terror" to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans's residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of "the shock doctrine": using the public's disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don't succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets."


{If you take "direct action" of any kind based on this type of inflamatory speech, you are making a mistake.}

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

Yes, I'm interested.

However, the news as at 13th September about fixed term Parliaments (the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill) was: -

"Nick Clegg will ask MPs to back a move to fixed-term, five-year parliaments today amid warnings the legislation is rushed and could open Parliament to legal challenge.






The Deputy Prime Minister will hail the move to strip prime ministers of the power to pick election dates for party advantage as a "profound" reform.


But an influential committee of MPs last week raised a number of concerns about the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill - which faces its first Commons hurdle this afternoon.


At present, a prime minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament at any time within five years of the previous general election.


Under the Bill, general elections would take place on the first Thursday in May every five years from the next time voters go to the polls - which would be May 7, 2015.


Parliament would be dissolved early if no government could be formed within 14 days of a simple majority vote of no confidence, or if two-thirds of MPs voted to trigger a general election.


The latter threshold was raised after a political outcry over initial plans to set it at 55%.


In a hastily-prepared report, the cross-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee welcomed the reforms but attacked the Bill's "unnecessarily" accelerated timetable.


It also highlighted concerns from the House of Commons' top official that Parliament could be left open to legal challenge and suggestions four-year terms could be more appropriate.


Clerk of the House Malcolm Jack told the committee that provisions in the Bill, which would require the Speaker to issue a certificate declaring that the dissolution requirements had been met, could lead to scrutiny by the courts.


He suggested using standing orders, rather than the statute book, to ensure the courts could not interfere in Parliament's internal workings.


Ahead of the debate, Mr Clegg said: "Establishing parliaments of fixed-terms is a straightforward, but fundamental, change in our politics. It is a simple constitutional innovation, but one that will have a profound effect.


"For the first time in our history, the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of governments. Prime ministers will no longer have the power to go to the polls at a time of their own choosing.


"Instead, there will be greater stability in our political system and people will know exactly how long a parliament can be expected to last.


"There may be exceptional circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for Parliament to continue to run for its full term.


"When there is a need to seek an earlier dissolution, that will be for the House - not the Government - to decide."

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

PS. The dates of the committee stage in the Commons have not yet been announced.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

Peaceful Protests, exactly as we did for the Poll Tax. People need to come out to their town and city centres, to their war memorials.

Make it on Remberance Day.

Get The British Legion involved.

Get The Army, The RAF, The Navy involved.

Get the Schools involved.

Get the BBC involved.
Put the message out on the BBC boards. You'll all have to do it, I'm banned, as in any email address from my computer. The only page I can get on to is BBC Radio Devon, all the other BBC boards are shut to me.

Make this Remembrance Day Sunday the biggest peaceful protest this country has ever seen. And make it on that day to remember all those servicemen who've died, who are still dying, who are maimed, legless, limbless, because they thought/think they have done all that they've done to create a better country for us, a better world for all.


And make THIS your banner!

NEVER Have So Many Been Betrayed By So Few!


This is not just about our government, past or present, but it is about Bankers and all Corporate Bastards who are lying in their Princess and the Pea Beds, laughing their heads off at us all, as we lose everything...

This HAS to Stop!
This HAS to Change!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: mauvepink
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:25 PM

I have actually said in the past week I would take part in peaceful means to protest if I thought it would do any good. There is a very real threat that any peaceful groups on the street could be used by those with less peaceful motivations and that is scary. None of us can help our loved ones if we get locked up and lose our jobs as a consequence.

I suspect some people will be in a position of thinking they have nothing else to lose and would go along with street demonstrations but, as has been seen in the very recent past, these too are not safe from hijacking by mobs or violence from the police. There is no way I could ever support violent means to bring about change. We have to keep the faith and believe tht in a democracy we should be able to find a way to bring change by peace. Naive, I know, but I have to live in the hope.

My great hope is that somewhere along the lines the backbenchers will revolt and threaten the coalition with more fear than any of us could do on the street. If they start getting it through their heads that the people are not saying we do not need to do something but are saying we need to protect the vulnerable, then maybe they will relent on some of these new cuts?

Violence wil beget violence. It always does. In the end getting around a table and talking is what will bring this hopefully to a better conclusion. Lobbying your MP and using your vote could be a good start if enough people do it?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM

That is the problem mp, peaceful protests invariably get infiltrated by the voilent b***ards who have no real interest in the peaceful protest.

I have already phoned my MP and complained about some of the things happening. That is what people need to do. Bombard your MP's

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM

More often than not any violence is provoked and initiated by the authorities, who then issue press statements about how the demonstrators were responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM

The Poll Tax was removed through non-violent protest, mp.

We are not dealing with decent people here. We are dealing with countries around the world who are now run by The New World Order. Search youtube and you will actually find Canada's Prime Minister telling 'his' people (ha!) that they have surrendered the control of their finances to the world order. He kind of apologises for this at first, saying that some may see it as a loss of sovereignty, but hey, that's the way it is, basically...

Stephen Harper is not the only 'leader' (Pah!) to have lost control of his country..

So many countries are now owned by those who run the banks and the huge corporations, who are so mega-powerful that we cannot even start to imagine how much they are worth.

The Zionists own and control nearly all the world's media, and when you start looking into the whole Zionist thing it gets bloody depressing, I can tell you! The Jewish people themselves are starting to stand up against what is going on in their name...

This is not going to be won by having nice cosy chats over a cup of tea...

I don't advocate violence at all. But I tell you what, there is nothing to put the shit into the pants of any government more than seeing ALL their people taking to the streets, saying "EBloodyNOUGH!"

As I said...lift your banners and chant "NEVER Have So Many Been Betrayed By So Few!" because *that* is the truth, around the world, where the Minority now control the Majority at every point of their lives.



"Sometimes, Liz, some things are so evil that you have no choice but to make a stand....." - My Dad

Those words of his go deep inside my soul..and they will never go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

My reply to Arthur was a tad tongue in cheek I must say. As all I intended this thread to be was a general discussion.

Any action taken, will I'd suppose end up being multi-pronged, ideally IMO via a broad fraternity of existent mutually sympathetic organisations. That's the key, to co-ordinate.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

"More often than not any violence is provoked and initiated by the authorities, who then issue press statements about how the demonstrators were responsible."

And that is **EXACTLY** what happened with the Canadian Police at this year's G20 Conference, where they were dressed as civilians, and started throwing stones. Unfortunately for the bastards, (sorry mp, but that name fits them) they'd forgotten to remove their regulation police boots, and so were spotted and taken out of the crowd. The police officer in charge later apologised and tried to squirm his way out.

It's all out there, on Youtube, the whole damn thing.

And how many MILLIONS did they spend on the G20 Conference? Again, look it up and try not to leave your mouth haning open in horror for too long...because remember, these people simply DO NOT CARE!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM

May I also suggest that anything that is done is done with polite and respectful language? No-one that can make a difference will read/listen to letters or conversations if they are full of aggressive speech and profanity. Neither would I expect them to. I myself would not like letters written in such ways and I sure do not like conversations full of foul language.

It seems some politicians already think of us as sheep, scroungers, minions etc., etc.. Let's not make it easy for them to turn away by giving them ammunition to shoot us before we can talk

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:52 PM

not just the message boards.. gathering outside tv and radio stations and local government offices with signs and handouts.

the problem is how to get enough local residents organised.

we don't know our neighbours, we don't stop and chat at the local shop or post office.

maybe getting involved with charities who work for the disabled and getting something going that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

"Make it on Remberance Day."

That's too soon Lizzie, 11th November? Not enough time to effectively organise, unless someone else thinks different? Otherwise, I do think your other ideas have a lot going for them. Middle-class liberal folkies may not jive with the nationalist vibe, but it's definitely a practical way to attract the interest of people more generally. And there's certainly nothing wrong in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:03 PM

"NEVER Have So Many Been Betrayed By So Few!"

Top stuff, keep the slogans coming LC.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM

I do not have broadband so youtube is out as I keep stating lol

Decent or not. Blasting at these people never gets anywhere. All it confirms to them is what they already think of us.I am not suggesting cosy chats over cups of tea. I said that in the end it always comes down to people sitting around a table and talking it out.

Talking war and battlecries is what helped get us into this mess in the first place. They are still finding money for that war. The rich still make money from weapons being sold for that war. Violence will not solve it. It never does. That was all I was saying

Judging by some of the things I hear you can get on yotube I am glad I have no acccess at times.

Tell me. Will organise this direct action? Will they be elected? How soon before people from within the ranks of the protest start turning on their own numbers and start mouthing off abuse at them because they see it different?

Evil takes many forms sadly

mp [mauvepink]

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM

"Get the BBC involved."

Not gonna happen. It's been reported that the BBC top brass have already been in talks with the coalition to determine how they should help to sell the public the cuts.
So much for an independent publicly funded information service...
Channel 4 still seem open to critical comment however.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM

"Evil takes many forms sadly"

Good Lord Mauve, that's rather strong!
A populist slogan is simply something to motivate people, but the result doesn't necessarily have to be a "war". Not unless the powers that be decide that it must be and attack those who are peacefully protesting of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

"peaceful protests invariably get infiltrated by the voilent b***ards who have no real interest in the peaceful protest."

This is a good point Arthur. Particularly when considering the recent state infiltrated agitation of demo's that we've witnessed in Canada for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

It would help if we knew exactly what we are meant to be protesting about

Student fees

Public sector job cuts

Benefit cuts

Defence cuts

Unemployment rates

Raising the retiring age

5 year parliaments

School building programme cuts

all of the above? more than that? less than that? what is wanted in place of that? do nothing? borrow more? or just generally protest?

What are we meant to be uniting around?

Myself I would like to see a growth strategy that would help pay back the deficit. As it is how much money do you save by making half a million more people unemployed and giving them benefits instead of collecting their taxes?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:04 PM

"It would help if we knew exactly what we are meant to be protesting about"

Precisely. That's why I started this thread.
If we object, then we each need to know what it is we object to. Then if enough of the populace objects, smaller units need to organise more generally in opposition of the cuts, and indeed the government itself. Which of course, as a coalition of minority parties representing disparate policies has no genuine democratic mandate.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:37 PM

Thread #133044   Message #3014358

Posted By: GUEST

24-Oct-10 - 01:06 PM

Thread Name: BS: Direct Action : UK

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK

I do not have broadband so youtube is out as I keep stating lol

Decent or not. Blasting at these people never gets anywhere. All it confirms to them is what they already think of us.I am not suggesting cosy chats over cups of tea. I said that in the end it always comes down to people sitting around a table and talking it out.

Talking war and battlecries is what helped get us into this mess in the first place. They are still finding money for that war. The rich still make money from weapons being sold for that war. Violence will not solve it. It never does. That was all I was saying

Judging by some of the things I hear you can get on yotube I am glad I have no acccess at times.

Tell me. Will organise this direct action? Will they be elected? How soon before people from within the ranks of the protest start turning on their own numbers and start mouthing off abuse at them because they see it different?

Evil takes many forms sadly

mp

---

"Evil takes many forms sadly"

Sorry Crowe Sister. Did not mean it to come across as strong. Rather I meant to point out that sometimes good people turn on good people who have a different view or perspective. When good people achieve or take on a position of power you see it happen so often that instead of taking the fight to the 'enemy' they take it to those who would be on their side.

Not doing a good job of explaining this but I know what I mean. I have seen it so many times. Self appointed leaders are often the most zealous.

But in no way was I suggesting that this is what you were trying to start. Quite the contrary. I just fear street actions turning into battle scenes the same way so many good cause have gone in thepast.

I'll shush... I really am not putting this across as eloquently as I would wish I could.

If I offended you Crow Sister I do apologise

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

"When good people achieve or take on a position of power you see it happen so often that instead of taking the fight to the 'enemy' they take it to those who would be on their side."

Sure, and of course our history is rife with seemingly 'good' people who turn into hideous tyrants waging war on others. So your comment is well founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

The other day while commemorating the Aberfan tragedy I played Alex Glasgow's moving song 'Close the Coalhouse Door' again
Why can't I get this song of his out of my head?

As soon as this thread closes..........

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:44 PM

I don't really feel Emma that that's a fair reflection of a talented songwriter.

I also believe that the riots brought the poll tax down.

Talking nicely to the government achieves nothing other than hypocritical mumbling about "we must look into that".

When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

If you eschew violence (and, let's face it, the army has all the big guns unless, as the Irish proved, enough of you are ready to die) you need a different weapon.

Capital has the media already.

Pretty limited range of options, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM

'riots brought the poll tax down.'

While the Poll Tax demo's had the effect of bringing about the people's will in that instance, 'direct action' certainly doesn't automatically have to include riots.

Many members of this forum will be familiar with peaceful forms of direct action from their days on CND marches and Greenham Common and so-on, not to mention action taken through strikes of course.

And for all the mumblings, taking action to demonstrate against the potentially hugely damaging and irreversible policies of a minority coalition, doesn't have to imply "revolution" either.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:06 AM

Rafflesbear: "if the Lib-Dem leadership were convinced they would be wiped off the political map by continuing to support the coalition it ought to make a difference"
"Myself I would like to see a growth strategy that would help pay back the deficit. As it is how much money do you save by making half a million more people unemployed and giving them benefits instead of collecting their taxes?"

Yep. I guess the political influence of Guardian reading liberals is potentially quite a key one where this coalition is concerned. In theory if enough pressure were applied in the right places, it could force a dissolution of parliament?

I certainly can't see this government altering it's economic strategy, which IMO as has been said elsewhere, represents a prime *opportunity* for them to enforce capitalist economic ideology rather than representing a situation of no genuine alternative options.

Otherwise, the TUC have called for public support of their demonstration against the cuts in Hyde Park on 26th March:

"So now we'll be taking our message to ordinary men and women, encouraging them to get involved in our campaign against the cuts. On Tuesday, the TUC held a successful rally and lobby of parliament, bringing together unions and organisations such as Crisis and the Child Poverty Action Group.
'On Wednesday, to coincide with the spending review, unions held protests from Plymouth in the south to Newcastle in the north. Today, demonstrations are taking place in Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Lincoln and London.
'So let's start campaigning and mobilising for our national demonstration against the cuts next Spring in London's Hyde Park on Saturday 26 March. Together let's make that mobilisation the biggest, boldest and best event in our history."

Hyde Park TUC Demo 26th March

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:33 AM

Direct action Willie style;

1. Let my MP know if I feel strongly enough about something he is in a position to influence or vote on.

2. Vote in the next general election.


Smash the system!!

ZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:49 AM

Yes, it's time for action. I have already sent an email to Jeremey Hunt regarding his appalling statement about not having children unless you can afford it and I also sent an email to my MP, David Davies, asking him to dissociate himself from the statemtn. I have had a reply back from Davis but not from Hunt.

Constant lobbying of MPs has to be a starting point.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Stu
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:03 AM

Agreed - at least letting them know we're unhappy is a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: bubblyrat
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:52 AM

Why SHOULD people be paid for having children ?? Especially in a country that is already overpopulated ?? Where do you "revolutionaries" think all the money is going to come from ,during a national financial crisis ? Should the government print more & more banknotes?? (study 1930s Germany).Should EVERYONE in the country be employed as a Civil Servant,with all the perquisites that that entails ?? ( Many of you would like that, I know ! ; who wouldn't ??).
            The answer is for the government to instil,in all individuals,a sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ; if a couple ( not that there are enough of THOSE these days,thanks to the "Feminists") intend having children,then they should be taught to accept the fact that the annual new car,the 36" -screen TV,the new 3-piece suite,the foreign holidays etc, will have to be put "on hold" for a few years. But that's NOT going to happen if the Government continues to pamper, spoil,and cushion the population against ANY kind of hardship (whether real or just perceived) or adversity ---which in any case,it patently can longer afford to do, as we are ALL in the grip of a MONUMENTAL financial crisis, for God's sake ; are you all BLIND ?? Get real,and come up with some sensible & realistic and practical solutions to the Nation's problems, don't bluster about "demonstrations" that will cause nothing but inconvenience for the general public (as in France)or hostility from the very Government that you want to influence !! Honestly,some of you are acting like petulant children !

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:02 AM

"then they should be taught to accept the fact that the annual new car,the 36" -screen TV,the new 3-piece suite,the foreign holidays etc, will have to be put "on hold" for a few years."

Time you (and the likes of Jeremey Hunt)lived in the real world instead of making stupid reactionary statements. Take a look at how people live on sink estates where they find it hard to scrape together enough to feed their kids. Hey, maybe we should send them up chimneys or down the mines (oh, sorry, Thatcher closed all of those)or make them beg in the streets. What kind of a heartless bastard are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:37 AM

There is no doubt that the violence of the poll tax riots in central London 20 years ago when demonstrators turned on police, attacking them with bricks, bottles and scaffolding poles hit the headlines or that this battleground between police and protesters in which 113 people were badly injured, including 45 police, came to be seen by some as the fatal blow for the government's community charge.

"For a start, if there had been no riot then the demonstration would have got no more than a few lines in the papers and a brief mention on the telly…..Remember the Glasgow demonstration against the Poll Tax in April 1989? Over 20,000 people were on it, a massive display of defiance that was quietly censored."
- Danny Burns defending the high profile anarchist Class War organisation perspective

However there was countrywide opposition to the Community Charge (a tax plan which shifted the burden for local essential services from rich to poor, landing poorer people with far higher bills) especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland and mass non violent direct action went on in the form of the non-payment campaign that followed As 25 million court cases had to be held to try to collect the unjust tax it became unenforceable.
Continued organized pressure upon MPs at ground roots level made the Tories retreat and abandon it in a 'palace coup' against Thatcher.

Speaking before the annual TUC conference in Manchester, last month the TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said:

"The poll tax was defeated when MPs returned to Westminster to report that their constituencies were in revolt. The poll tax offended the British people's basic sense of what's fair. So will the spending cuts.
Every coalition MP with a small majority and every coalition MP who fought an election to oppose deep early cuts needs to feel the pressure from their constituents to change course."

Quoted in GreenFeed Adam Ramsay considers some original campaigning ideas against the coalitions proposals for the future of the entire British education system

"The Lib Dems, in particular, have been vocal about introducing a right for constituents to recall their MPs. If they abstain or vote for an increase in fees, it should be made clear that this is precisely what they face. Even though the legislation on recall rights has yet to go through, it has been suggested that a threshold of around 10% of constituents signing a petition would be a reasonable amount to trigger a by-election – and campaigners can use this as a guide by gathering signatures, even if recall rights are never enshrined in law….
...it would be very difficult for an MP to ignore an unprecedented groundswell of opinion in their constituency – and campaigns could certainly claim that going back on such a public pledge constitutes a breach of trust between constituents and their MP.

Local campaigns should therefore look at recall petitions as a serious option. They could then put forward one candidate to take on the Lib Dems and Tories, getting the left, Greens and even Labour to stand aside to ensure maximum unity.

This would be something for the nascent local anti-cuts networks to mobilise around, with the potential to generalise the struggle against fees into a more holistic attack on the economic vandalism of the ConDems; it also presents a mouth-watering opportunity for greater left unity.
For students, such community-orientated tactics are, in my opinion, far more important than occupations and direct actions isolated on university campuses"

btw Richard - Alex Glasgow was a talented songwriter AND a socialist who was not shy of satire!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:50 AM

"the annual new car, the 36"-screen TV, the new 3-piece suite,the foreign holidays etc".

I don't know any person (read my lips, not one) subsisting on benefits who has all of those. You must be in the gin and Jaguar belt Ratty.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 08:04 AM

"You must be in the gin and Jaguar belt Ratty."

Cloud cuckoo land, more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:35 AM

>That is the problem mp, peaceful protests invariably get infiltrated by the voilent b***ards who have no real interest in the peaceful protest.

I have already phoned my MP and complained about some of the things happening. That is what people need to do. Bombard your MP's <

This is true as happened in London during the Iraq war protest there were some amongst the protestors who were just out to stir as much violent trouble as possible. I didn't go because of my job etc. but a friend did and she felt slightly unnerved by it. They can contrive anything to make it look like a thuggish mob and to make the police look under threat. Bombarding MP's is a start.

The 36'' screen tv and material things aren't important to everyone, I am not on benefits but still do not take holidays every single year or have the latest tv because I do not choose to, my children are grown-up now so I have been through the nuturing and schooling etc. but I can still appreciate how hard it can be especially now when children want what they see or read about in the media. I have known some women take two or three part time jobs in a day to make ends meet, at least they do it and should not be dictated to whether or not they should watch a 36'' screened tv or not because of their low income. Many well healed middle-class people got themselves into debt crisis before the recession using money they didn't have, programs have been made about it. As quibbling for paying for single or single underaged girls having babies the schools could do give a bit more guidance with this one and while they are at it educate the boys too to think above the waist line for a change and that it isn't cool. It is easy for a girl and boy to make a mistake it happens in all societies it is something that has always happened and always will. Older single mums would not make the choice of having a child without giving it a great deal of thought financially or anything else, it can't be assumed that they are going to be on benefit.

The recession has already changed ordinary working class people's attitudes and behaviours regarding waste and energy saving through advertising, news and general programmes even at schools to educate and inform children from that end. But for Cameron to start jabbing at the people who have done all this and the bankers have been the biggest rip-off crooks going is a bit rich. Demonstration is the last resort but if does so beit Cameron has had it far too cushy so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:04 AM

I think folks are getting off track here. Stop blaming those on benefits. It's EXACTLY what the government has been training you all to do these past months...

Meanwhile, those who have stolen billions from kind, well meaning, innocent people are living the high life and laughing their rich little heads off, because they are not being made to pay, they are not being exposed, they are not doing or being anything, other than enjoying being VERY wealthy people who don't have to pay back a penny.

And meanwhile, they keep paying themselves huge bonuses for being so damned clever, whilst folks at the other end of the ladder are turning each other in, blaming their neighbours...

All very clever stuff...

"Your on your yacht, we're on our knees..." taken from

ARROGANCE IGNORANCE & GREED - by SHOW OF HANDS

Learn the words.

You'll need to know them, inside out....

Now get back to what MATTERS!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM

"As quibbling for paying for single or single underaged girls having babies the schools could do give a bit more guidance with this one"

FACT: teenage pregnancy rates have fallen by 4% since 2007.

FACT: the average age for women getting pregnant for the first time in the UK has risen to 29.

MYTH: the idea of more and more indolent young women than ever before are getting pregnant.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 11:08 AM

Lizzie, do you have the number of teenagers in 2007 compared with 2010.
Could it be that there was a teenage population increase and therefore although down by 4% may in actual fact, hide the fact that more teenagers became pregnant in 2010. Just a thought.

The other thing is that Abortions seem to have increased dramatically. Is that correct?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 11:57 AM

Arthur, I can't find the actual population figures. The point I'm making is that the overall number of pregnancies is decreasing so it is not an escalating drain on the benefit system as some would have us believe. Abortion rates have shown a small decline in the last 2 years. Average age for getting pregnant has been rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:01 PM

Oh sorry leveller, I thought it was Lizzie that posted that comment. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

Arthur, conception rates are measured per 1,000 girls so any possible raise in the teenage population would be taken into account

According to data from the Office for National Statistics, 41,325 girls under 18 in England and Wales fell pregnant in 2008, a decline of 3.9% from 2007 This represents a rate of 40.4 per 1,000 girls in 2008 – a drop of just over 13% from 1998

Conception rates among under-16s fell by 6% to 7.8 per 1,000 girls in 2007.
Just under half of pregnancies among 15-to-18 year-olds led to an abortion.

In England, the north east had the highest pregnancy rate of 49 per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 17, while the east of England had the lowest rate, at 31.4 per 1,000.
In the ten poorest areas, conception rates fell 15% in the decade from 1998.

For regional variations and statistics see
'Facts are Sacred'

From the same source -

There were 189,100 abortions in 2009, down from 195,296 in 2008, data for women living in England and Wales from the Department of Health - a drop of 3.2%

Overall, 2,085 abortions (1% of the total) were for children who would have been born disabled. This included 775 for chromosomal abnormalities including Down's
syndrome and 496 for problems with the nervous system.

Among under-15s, there were 1,047 abortions (down from 1,097 in 2008), of which 136 were on girls under 14 and 911 were on 14-year-olds.
Among all under-16s, there were 3,823 abortions (down from 4,113 in 2008) and 17,916 among under-18s (down from 19,387 in 2008).
Girls aged 15 to 19 accounted for 39,020 abortions in 2009.


Of course this is nothing whatsoever to do with the thread which was a sincere attempt to consider the role of Direct Action and what form this could take against the draconian cut backs.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:55 PM

TSO and I are down for the March in March. Don't have a 2011 calendar... somebody please remind me nearer the time.

Hopefully, there should be organised coaches taking people from all over the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM

When some of the god-bothering lunatic right get going on single mothers etc etc I am reminded of an alleged conversation of Lady Chatterley with Mellors: -

"Oh, is this what the common people call "fucking"?"

"Yes m'Lady"

"Oh, it's far too good for them!"

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:40 PM

Well its not all bad, this thread has given me some of the best laughs I've had in years.

Starting with Crow Sister. "As an aside, it's a bummer this topic is too far outside the remit of Folk against Fascism"

Arthur from the Emerald Isle, "doesn't support voilence in any form"

Lizzie wants to get "the Army the Navy, the RAF, AND Dads Army involved"

Mauvepink doesn't mind a bit of protesting, as long as there's no "foul language" involved.

Rafflesbear doen't know what to protest about

Emma's too much of an intellectual to get her hands bloody.

Leveller's still fighting the Tories.

We all know what the problem is, capitalism is finished with us. It leaves its demented daughter Fascism to gobble up the blood and guts.

No point in appealing to the forces, as Emma says they have all the guns and will not hesitate to shoot us down like dogs.

You're all too fucking "liberal" for a revolution why dont you just go down the pub and organise a nice session of anti BNP songs...:0)

In 2003 after the Labour Party had turned us all into murdering bastards, I stood with 100,000 Scots outside the Scottish Exhibition Conference Centre listening to all the speeches...the crowd was an angry growling beast, but the speech makers were hollow men, more interested in the effect of tomorrows headlines on their careers than in revolution.

A thousand police ringed the Centre to defend those inside...and indeed, I would have stormed it single handed and personally despatched the whole Labour cabinet, but in the event the people milled around for a while, then we all went home to have our tea.

There are two options, stick with capitalism/fascism, take your medicine and shut the fuck up.
Or decide that we need a completely different type of society, a society which in its construction will involve pain suffering and poverty, before humanity finds its true place in this world.

Do you think you're hard enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:57 AM

Any society that does not look after its most vulnerable citizens does not deserve to thrive. The moral high ground that is seemingly impractical to the current government.

I wish I was young and healthy enough to accommodate my hotheadedness. I am not. But also, I really don't care much for the life that is being handed to me, so I don't mind getting my head bashed in for a good cause. Matters not that it won't make a speck of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 03:18 AM

Thanks, Ake - I practically pissed myself with laughter. I'll have what you're drinking!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:22 AM

"You're all too fucking "liberal" for a revolution"

Ake, perhaps you could start a thread about how to bring about the revolution? Then those interested in starting a revolution can discuss that topic there and those interesting in discussing the topic of this thread, can continue to discuss that topic here. Otherwise, why not go and take your own advice and stfu.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:31 AM

Ahem, anyhoo. As far as the TUC demo in Hyde Park is concerned. Yes I'll be there too. It would be interesting to know how many other fellow might be likely to go?

The TUC wants to forge a broad "coalition" of charities and other interest groups to form a united front against these cuts. Right now, bar pressuring Lib-Dem MP's in iffy seats, that seems the most pragmatic way forward to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:41 AM

Just out of interest;

if Labour had got in, they would have had to introduce austerity measures. They would have been different, they would not have been as slash and burn as the fears in the run up to Osborne's statement last week, but I for one reckon they would have been as arbitrary as the reality of what has been announced. Worse, we would be waiting for an upturn in the world economy rather than tackling national debt. And ANY government revels in international upturns rather than using the opportunity to address long term issues. New Labour being the best example...

Would we still have armchair socialists ranting about a war that would affect opening time at the chemists they get their prescriptions?

Like I said above. Direct action! Vote when the election comes.

In the meantime, accept that the youth of today are not the same as when we were young. They were brought up with a Tory government calling itself New Labour. To them, there is no left / right, there is no social conscience party. In fact, the poll tax protests are as relevant as the repeal of the corn laws.

So where are you going to get your foot soldiers from? And how are you going to convince me that the pain I went through in '84 on strike was any better than now, especially as the reference to the jag and gin set sums me up perfectly. (To be fair, I am swapping the jag for a Land Rover Discovery shortly, but its the thought that counts.)

You see, we are not a nation of haves versus have nots. We are everything inbetween too. My brother has been a third world aid worker in one guise or another since the '70s, and is in Pakistan right now, after the rest of the world has forgotten about the floods. he has always said, and this is a sobering thought. "Well done, by living here, you have won the lottery." Kind of puts it in perspective. Of course, aspiration is a noble cause, but ultimately, it is tweaking around the edges that is needed.

Vote for who you want and accept you get the government.

If any flavour of Ministers was to do things fundamentally different, I would be interested to know how.

But to get all revved up about direct action is silly nonsense. Growing old disgracefully is about getting your nipples pierced, not sitting in a prison bemoaning your loss of respect and dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:42 AM

"It would be interesting to know how many other fellow might be likely to go?"

I know that mrsleveller is intending to go with a load of people from the WEA. If I go we'll have to take 11-year old daughter so we'll have to make a decision on that nearer the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:44 AM

"Otherwise, why not go and take your own advice and stfu."

Oh!.....alright then..... :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:47 AM

"Oh!.....alright then..... :0("

Lol, that made me laff Ake!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:58 AM

Akeneton
I am English, not Irish you plonker :-). Likewise what I think and choose to do is up to me, not you, just like what you think or do.

If people want to do protest marches, good luck to you, I know I won't be there. Just keep well away from the trouble makers :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:37 AM

"how are you going to convince me that the pain I went through in '84 on strike was any better than now,"

I wouldn't bother, as you've stated your opinion quite clearly.

However regards making comparisons, I would say they the situation as it was then is slightly different to the current one. Importantly the strategy the TUC are advocating in this instance, is one of getting a variety of organisations across the board which represent many different groups of people involved. It's not just about a bunch of grubby Northern agitators who can easily be "othered". It's about little old ladies and disabled kiddies.

Importantly, the actions proposed are to include service *users* as well as service providers, so ideally it won't be a 'them and us' situation. The Mail & Telegraph are no doubt busy working at heading off any potential sense of solidarity the Unions and service providers want to forge with 'the people' or service users.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:44 AM

Oops. Cont'd:

..however. So at present there's really no way of knowing who will win the propaganda war. But the more ordinary people, including the disabled, young working families in social housing and so-on, turn out and show their support, the harder it will be for the right-wing press to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:16 AM

Thanks Crow Sister, you made your point...

As I am a normal person who wants the best from this society rather than invent another society... I am to be dismissed by you.

When I did stick up for my job and community, I was a grubby Northern agitator.

Your weird ideas are vindicated in your mind because they include service users!! Something you feel I know nothing about then?

Sorry duck, I am an advisor to The Care Quality Commission and let me just get one thing through, just the one seed to plant, it won't hurt, I promise.

The right wing press don't know what a service user is. Everybody is lumped together and if you want to exploit vulnerable people, that's your lookout, but my experience is that fear of the future and what it holds is exacerbated by armchair socialists who use such people as a front to their own tawdry aims, and that sickens me. it really does.

Action?   Get a grip.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:21 AM

To echo CS's sentiments above

In the absence of any real political opposition and the demonization
of the unions* there appears to be a vacuum for activating and organizing a united protest against the cuts that slash welfare payments in the midst of persistent unemployment and which threaten to push a weak economy back into recession.

The pain of the cuts will be felt by a wide range of people and it is important to activate/preserve some kind of unity of dissent - a broad front of opposition is needed which pulls together 'single interest' groups like the students, the disabled etc

It is useful, if disturbing, to look at the rise of the Tea Party in the US which provided a simplistic 'hard right' narrative explanation for economic hardship

Taking this example, above all I strongly believe that the first task of any 'direct action' is the responsibility to prevent popular anger being exploited and misdirected at convenient scapegoats like 'scroungers' young mothers, the long term unemployed (and unemployable) etc and the more identifiable 'immigrants'

A strong and well formulated argument CAN mobilise public opinion but there are considerable vested interests behind this ideological attack on the Welfare State and it will not be an easy task


* In the event of any industrial dispute, the media operates on the default setting that the union is always wrong, irrespective of the facts, and that striking is always wrong, irrespective of whether other options have been explored and shut down.
David Wearing a PhD candidate in Political Science at the School of Public Policy, University College London

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:51 AM

Sorry if I still don't know what I'm protesting about but all the most notable protests have been single issue ones

Poll Tax
Mine Closures
Iraq War

I can't see you lining up 'cuts' against those, especially when most people can see that there is an underlying problem that does need to be addressed one way or another.

I still think that the way ahead is clear and it is centred squarely on the Lib-Dems, who while not in power put themselves forward as a very principled party of strong and clear values. Much of this has been sacrificed in order to become an active part of government including assisting putting through policies it specifically went to the electorate opposing.

I cannot believe that all those principled people have suddenly abandoned their principles to stand in line with the Conservatives. There always seemed to be a greater leaning to the left than the right. I would even suggest that the party had a bigger effect on the conscience of the nation when not in power than it has now.

If the grass roots of the Lib-Dems can be mobilised against their leadership then change becomes possible within the system

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

Hooray for Em ....the British Tea party, but will there be honey still for tea?

Em's spot on,forget the poisonous policies.
Can the left not once break out of it's divisiveness and unite on one all important issue.....are we prepared to let this system continue, because, if we are, we deserve what ever they fling at us.

People like Willie will always cajole us to remember that we have a little still left to lose....."The Africans are so much worse off aren't they?"

We need a British Sarah!......Em?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:14 AM

Except we make better tea in the UK.

Methinks direct action for change is a good idea actually. In a totalitarian society.

We don't have that. We have a democratic government, elected by and for the people. Ok, not perfect, and at present, a coalition that has managed to give us a conservative agenda that is hamstrung by lib dem concerns. Regardless of your views, it is not a good combination...

In case anybody didn't notice, we have just had an election and to waffle on about getting out of bed and having your face painted before giving them a chance is to be in dispute with democracy itself. Even Milliband Jr knows that.

I really do agree with lobbying MPs, writing letters to newspapers, helping to form the policies of alternative ideas (New Labour are looking for a direction if anybody wants to write it for them.)   

But this talk of opting out of the democratic process? Isn't that what criminal terrorists do? I note a few were banged up for terrorising contractors to science research companies the other day.

Surely nobody here is advocating grinding the country to a halt so their minority view, based largely on envy, gets through? Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:45 AM

Willie, protests are part of the democratic process. To register discontent, especially with policies that were not in the government's manifesto (in fact, of course, the Condems didn't have a joint manifesto and no-one actually voted for them) is a perfectly legitimate way to try to influence future policy. Occasionally, governments will try to do this themselves by having a referendum, but usually only if they think they can win. The alternative is to wait until the next election, by which time untold damage could have been done.

As to minority views - well, we'll see. And as for the old 'envy' chestnut, oh, do us a favour!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:07 AM

"Your weird ideas are vindicated in your mind because they include service users!! Something you feel I know nothing about then?"

Not *my* weird ideas Willie, those of the TUC. I've no idea what you know about, and I never claimed to know. It hardly matters in any event, because as you've said repeatedly, you're not interested in the topic of this thread. If you call that "dismissing you", well so be it. Those who choose to take action will no doubt do so, those like yourself who object to others taking action can take it up with people actually interested in discussing your opinions about their choices with them. But that's as much as I'm interested in discussing your opinions about my choices with you. Tata...

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM

of course protest is part of the democratic process. But please, in seriousness, read some of the posts above, and spot the difference between protesting to influence the decisions of those in government and protesting to remove such people regardless of the decisions they make.

That is my point.

Sorry mate, it will be seen to be minority. When I was a teenager, most of us were politically active and motivated. I put it to you that most people under the age of 35 are not the socialists you think they are. Labour and Conservative are two sides of the same coin to them. My own lads, in their late '20s now would only be able to separate the two parties by different policies, rather than appealing to different sections of society.

Tell you what, when I was a kid, I had a poster on my wall with a nuclear mushroom and the phrase "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" Methinks that could apply...

Anyway, whilst nobody voted for this outcome, the system is that such an outcome is a possible consequence of an election, always has been. Nobody actually voted for the last LibLab pact either, but the Liberals are useful to either side as they lack principles.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

PS: In case anyone missed them, maybe I aught to point the invisible quotation marks I put around "grubby Northern agitators" in respect to the point I made about 'othering' strategies of the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: MikeL2
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus - PM
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM

< I have already phoned my MP and complained about some of the things happening. That is what people need to do. Bombard your MP's >

Hi Arthur

My MP is George Osborne......!!!!!   nuff said ....!!!!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM

"My own lads, in their late '20s now would only be able to separate the two parties by different policies, rather than appealing to different sections of society."

Yes, but the policies have different impacts on different sections of society. It's the policies are seeking to influence and what we are after (well, I am) is fairness so that the most disadvantaged sections of society don't get trampled underfoot but those who have more power and influence.


"grubby Northern agitators"
I'll have yo know that I have a bath every year, whether I need it or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:04 AM

Direct Action has been succinctly defined as any action where individuals or groups act directly themselves to try to bring about change rather than asking or expecting others to act on their behalf
- Howard Clark Preparing for Non violent Direct Action 1984

Direct action does not necessarily mean breaking the law e.g. boycotts, but some even though non violent, such as tax refusal or occupation etc, may involve a breach of the law.

Overlapping with some forms of direct action is civil disobedience - an open public defiance of the law aimed at bringing about change - for example Gandhi's campaigns to end British rule in India

Is non violent direct action really 'opting out' of a constitutional democracy?

It surely doesn't necessarily make one a 'criminal terrorist' !
(I don't think your argument about protesting in order to influence the government is helped atall by this level of hyperbole 'Willie')

It seems unlikely that, unlike the elected left wing government of Guyana overthrown by a CIA financed and organized strike in 1963, the overthrow of a well established British democracy - however imperfect - is in any real danger
I share the perceived concern of others however that, however well justified by circumstances, 'traditional liberties' like the right to strike, even to assemble may be curtailed little by little

It is important to remember that, in their day, Martin Luther King and civil rights activists were charged with being 'undemocratic' when they resorted to direct action and civil disobedience

Michael Randle* argues that only rarely can a democratically elected government be coerced even by a mass direct action campaign into changing a policy it is committed to as the reality is that they have the edge in purely physical force
But numbers can be important because they attract more media coverage and can work at a political as well as a symbolic level

* Direct Action a threat to democracy ? University of Bradford Dept of Peace Studies

Randle concludes that
"In any rate the proposition that civil disobedience should be altogether eschewed in a constitutional democracy carries its own, far greater, danger…
It chiefly operates within the democratic system through the power of drama and symbolism THROUGH APPEALS TO SHARED VALUES WITHIN THE SOCIETY AND THROUGH FACING THE AUTHORITIES WITH MORAL AND POLITICAL DILEMMAS IN DECIDING HOW TO PRECEED'

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM

"I'll have yo know that I have a bath every year, whether I need it or not!"

Pooh, Leveller! I do hope you don't intend to abuse all the poor helpless "vulnerable" imbeciles with that pong of yours in Hyde Park?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:27 PM

March 2011 I'll be in a small two bed in Essex - 45 minutes from London. I'll be bang on the A12 and there's a rail line straight to London within ten minutes walking distance too. I'm happy to house a small amount of Catters who need to travel distance in order to support the demo. And for those interested, there will be space for up to two caravans. Let me know via PM if you might need a place to park up.. I'll repeat the offer on Mudcat nearer the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:37 PM

I think I will probably go in March 2011, plantar fasciitis or no.

The point was put to me to day by a client heavily involved in the technical delivery of solutions to enable direct democratic access (sorry to be so cryptic, but client confidentiality, you know) that it is inherent in the concept of democracy that one listens to and considers contrary opinions.

If that is correct (I am still cogitating) then neither the USA nor the UK at present have a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM

Akenaton wrote "Mauvepink doesn't mind a bit of protesting, as long as there's no "foul language" involved."

You bend my words akenaton. I also pointed out I was against violence too. The point I was making is that it will take a whole load to get these people to listen to us at all. Starting any reasoned appeal to them by using foul language will not endear them to wanting to listen. Why should they?

Can you imagine what woul hapen if the MP's spoke in such terms when delivering thier diatribes to each other an to us? What does swearing achieve. It may make the perpetrator feel better momentarly but does it actually forward their argument? It makes it sound more aggressive and people close thier ears.

The condecension shown to your fellow 'Catters' does you no honour. Each here has a right to express their ideas, and offer what they think may be a start to trying for a solution, without recourse to ridicule.

In my opinion last weeks announcements have affected so many people to their very core that many are struggling to try and find a way to make a difference without resorting to violence or civil disorder. Ridiculing peaceful attempts to do something useful is so unfair and uncalled for on the forum.

Why should anyone have to prove how 'hard' they are? If peaceful means can bring about a swell of change, if peaceful means can change the minds of those sient backbenchers, if peaceful means can bring about rethinks and change, should that not be the priority to follow first. Fighting among ourselves just makes us a laughing stock in the face of those who dish all this down to us. Can you imagine what they would think of people showing how hard they can be? "Look at them, fighting among themselves, giving us every opportunity to divide and rule, then squash them with the law when they finally turn on us".

Do we need to be made criminals to prove how hard we are? Could it not be that back in 2003 common sense prevailed and lives were saved as a consequence? Do you still harbour feelings from back then that now makes you want to have another go but at a different target?

Ridicule my principles and belief. Yuu are not the first and will not be the last. No-one is stopping you from mounting your attack. I am a soft target...

I reiterate though. If we turn on ourselves what do we acheive?

with respect

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 03:15 PM

We are also in Essex and near train to London. Have spare room will share for any further afield who need a place to stay going to and/or coming from. Also a sofa bed in lounge.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM

I can't find the details...What march? Where? When?


ake....I brought in the Army, the Navy and the RAF, because they're all as pissed off as the rest of us, but...they are putting their lives on the line for the 'leaders' of this country, and have been doing so during the last 'leaders' as well...

Tell me the date, the time, the destination....and I'll be there too.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:27 PM

"I can't find the details...What march? Where? When?"

Lizzie, considering the mass control of the media - including that of the the BBC (so-called "independent" tax-payer funded) Tory bumboys - it's not necessarily surprising.

Anyhoo, there will be a mass demonstration against the cuts co-ordinated by the TUC on March 26th 2011 in Hyde Park, London.

My suggestion is to co-ordinate a group at a local level to join you. Get in touch with local pressure groups and charities, particularly those who may represent those who you care for, both immediately and less immediately, and get there with them.

As said previously, I will happily house a few who must travel long distance, but will not be able to house not too many..

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM

Thanks, CS.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:32 AM

http://www.tuc.org.uk/mediacentre/tuc-18709-f0.cfm

Sharing it on my facebook too

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:38 AM

I just completed the TUC contact form asking them to start Facebook and Twitter Groups and Facebook events page.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 03:46 AM

Ah! Thats sorted that then.

I have just read somewhere above that there is a difference between breaking the law and a breach of the law.

Presumably one involves criminals and the other involves people who care?

The "quango" I am involved with recently had a huge restructure in order to balance the books, and some of the redundancies were not voluntary. Having done all that, our CEO was asked by Ministers the other day what our contribution is going to be? No, that's in the past, we need plans to cut from this point...

Ok, it makes my blood boil too. I doubt I will stand in a park in London, but if I didn't have access to decision makers, which I occasionally do, I might feel frustrated enough to let them know how I feel in other ways, and demonstrations may be old hat, but they are noble in their concept.

However, reading in this thread, the hunting thread etc., I do get the feeling many people are more interested in removing the legitimate government rather than asking them to make their decisions based on taking the crowd's view into account.

And that is why I will be in the pub that day. I too have strong values and commitment, but my heartfelt opinion is based on democracy rather than circumventing it. After all, isn't that what people claim to be protesting about? Lack of mandate?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:03 AM

Democracy? thats a laugh....do you seriously consider we live in a democracy.

In most cases, the govt do what they feel to be in their electoral interests, rather than what is in the interests of the country or the people.

Are the people to be consulted over the robbery of billions from every man woman and child in the UK? The loss of employment? Public services?.....All because our economic system was allowed to fail.

And remember the war?   When every poll showed that public opinion was against it, did the people in power listen.....are they listening now?

All this backed by a "liberal media" which ridicules and deplores any sort of radicalism......"Democracy" is a sham!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:40 AM

"I have just read somewhere above that there is a difference between breaking the law and a breach of the law."


Really 'willie' ?

Certainly not in my post!

I clearly stated in response to your provocative remark 'opting out' of the democratic process was what 'criminal terrorists' did that
"Direct action does not necessarily mean breaking the law"
giving the example of boycotts while other forms of direct action, for example tax refusal (hich was used by some during the poll tax campaign) while still non violent obviously did constitute a breach of the law.

breach - A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation

That's sorted that then?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:10 AM

EmmaB: "A strong and well formulated argument CAN mobilise public opinion but there are considerable vested interests behind this ideological attack on the Welfare State and it will not be an easy task"

As such it's important that the demos don't descend into 'blood on the streets' because that way any groundswell of opinion will swiftly turn upon those arguing against the cuts. For myself, I'd certainly far rather be involved in a carnival vibe with people singing songs (be they "anti BNP" or otherwise) and uniting in fraternity with each other, than getting my head kicked in however hard that might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:17 AM

Well CS, you will accomplish nothing......Capitalists just love carnivals!

Look back into history and see that to be effective, protest must hit them where it hurts!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:28 AM

"Look back into history and see that to be effective, protest must hit them where it hurts!"

Tell that to Ghandi.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

I have Indian friends leveller and they dont seem to think that even a fine human being like Ghandi accomplished much except exchanging one set of corrupt masters for another.
Corruption in modern India is worse than in almost any other nation on Earth.
Irish republicans fought their way to freedom.

Martin Luther King inspired a generation, but it was the sight of "all the cities burning down" that frightened the shit out of America's leaders.

The Vietnamese died in their millions to rid their country of the invaders...then had the magnanimity to embrace their enemies.

Capitalism and the imperialism that it produces, does not respond to kindness, it has no understanding of simple morality....How many attemts have been made by the US on the life of Fidel?
As fine a human as Ghandi in his own way.

The system understands only power or profit, deprive it of either and it will slither off to easier pickings,

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:10 PM

I don't seem to be getting much support here but the first hiccups in the programme are appearing on housing benefit... because? - the Lib Dems are baulking at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 03:46 PM

"I don't seem to be getting much support here"

As I said earlier, I think you're right. But as someone else said to me, a high-profile united front of dissenting groups, can only encourage the Lib-Dems in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:11 PM

Sorry, won't be able to join your little demo, we'll be photographing larger demos outside the Casa Rosada in the Plaza de Mayo, Buenos Aires.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:41 AM

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/10/vodafones-6bn-tax-bill-let-off-and-the-7b

Re the £6bn tax break for vodafone, anyone up for some small leafleting demos outside local vodafone shops?

We (TSO and I) are thinking about this Saturday at our local vodafone shop. If TSO can locate his contact details for his friends in the labour party.

Plan to send some emails around my old work colleagues and maybe to labour and lib dem reps.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:00 AM

CS, expanding on our shared ideas above, how about....

'Battle 4 Britain'

....as that speaks to the younger generation as well, no matter how much some may loathe 'text speak'

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:38 AM

"Do not let spacious plans for a new world divert your energies from saving what is left of the old." - Winston Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:49 AM

VTam, Vodafone have denied it naturally but does someone know what the source for that 6b figure is - is it reasonably well founded?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:07 AM

LC, as said before I do think there's a place for some nationalist type sentiment/slogans. Defending the umm 'traditional values' of this land and so on. And in particular what may make it pertinent is that it's the very social infrastructure built after WWII that this govt. are now attacking. That infrastructure is there to defend the most vulnerable in our society, and arguably symbolises all the best that Britain stands for: 'fair play', equality, decency, protecting the weak yada yada.. The biggest danger with that kind of sentiment is however that it can be readily co-opted by hard right thugs. That said, should they be allowed to?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:22 AM

It has been used before as an anti-fascist rallying cry: http://www.battleforbritain.org.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:27 AM

@Steaming Willie (has anyone else looked that up in the Urban Dictionary?)

This is not a legitimate government. The Lib dems campaigned on a platform of opposition to the cuts plans of the conservatives. They then ratted on those election pledges. That is a fraud on the electorate. It undermines the central idea of a compact between the government and the governed that legitimates rule. Go back and revise your constitutional law.

Further, the formalist argument is that the parliament (not the same thing as the government) has an avenue to remove the government in order to form a new one or that the electorate has a path to remove the government by elections. But almost the first thing the Con-dems did was to start planning to escape those controls - by tilting the playing field on votes of confidence with a view to getting a full 5-year term no matter what. That fatally undermines, in my view, any claim for this government to be called a legitimate government.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:39 AM

""it is inherent in the concept of democracy that one listens to and considers contrary opinions.""

Damn little sign of that happening here Mr Bridge, and you are noted more for the opposite, aren't you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:36 AM

Re Vodafone - actually it's the law, what are you beefing about. I would imagine the company in a "tax haven" is associated for UK tax purposes so that any restrictions so placed on UK have been enforced. Nothing wrong with setting up a company in BVI for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:06 AM

Talking of populist slogans, didn't you come up with another one LC:

"Never was so much owed to so many by so few"

Gotta be a T shirt in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM

Is this a thread about means of getting a view heard by decision makers or ways to remove them?

Richard Bridge has just pointed out that in his view it is not a legitimate government. Thanks for that Richard, I can now stop trying to debate and just ignore you as you have just proved your views to be irrelevant.

if you think it is not a legitimate government, then all bets are off to remove them. Are you going to dig the holes next to the wall to put the posts in for the firing squads? thought not. Get back in your armchair where you do least harm.

A bit further up on this thread, somebody pointed out the difference between a breach of law and breaking the law. I questioned this and it was, as far as I can see, repeated. Part of what i do for a government body these days is upholding a piece of legislation in which those being regulated can be dealt with without legal means, (restrictions on practice) or dealt with in the civil courts or ultimately through the criminal system. interestingly, there are tipping points in which you drift from one level of regulation to the next but nowhere in that, or I believe any other, is there a difference between a breach of the law and breaking the law. You can be guilty of letting society down either way.

Oh, and this urban dictionary Richard is harping on about. I only heard of it via him the other day, and was bemused to read what a Steamin' Willie is... Of course, that's what it is in this toilet humour website that Richard seems to visit. Me? I'm not swept into puerile humour in the same way, so at least where I am concerned, Steamin' Willie means me, warts & all. Loss of various bodily fluids are for Richard's literature readings, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:40 AM

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few' was part of a wartime speech made by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on 20 August 1940 referring to the ongoing efforts of the Royal Air Force pilots ('The Few') when Britain was expecting a German invasion

Think it's been done already CS!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:53 AM

Indeedy! Recheck the phrasing in my last post..

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:14 AM

"A bit further up on this thread, somebody pointed out the difference between a breach of law and breaking the law. I questioned this and it was, as far as I can see, repeated."
'Willie'

I might suggest you can't see very far 'Willie' or your determination to score a cheap point is making you blind to what I actually posted
Please go back and re read; I really can't be bothered to have to explain again that a breach of the law and breaking the law are synonymous and that the people who chose to withhold their council tax as a form of protest were well aware of this and were prepared to accept the consequences of non violent direct action

" Tax resistance can be a form of conscientious objection (for example, some pacifists refuse to pay taxes that pay for war).
Tax resistance can also be a variety of protest, or a technique of nonviolent resistance
Tax resisters may accept that some law commands them to pay taxes but they still choose to resist taxation."
- Wiki

For your information 'Willie' there is a literary device known as synonymia; while it is more commonly used to add force or clarity it may also be used simply to avoid repetition in the same sentence.

"but nowhere in that, or I believe any other, is there a difference between a breach of the law and breaking the law. You can be guilty of letting society down either way."

You really are flogging this wilful misunderstanding aren't you?

The Salt Satyagraha, which began with the Dandi March on March 12, 1930, was an important part of the Indian independence movement. - whatever the argument about the current state of Indian politics I don't think Gandhi can be dismissed as letting his society down

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:22 AM

"Talking of populist slogans, didn't you come up with another one LC:

"Never was so much owed to so many by so few"

Gotta be a T shirt in there."<<<<<<<



Mine was:

'Never Have So Many Been Betrayed By So Few', CS

I like your one too.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: mayomick
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:31 AM

From what I hear, the UK activists taken in by the policeman who infiltrated the direct action scene , Mark Stone or Mark Kennedy as his real name is ,have been totally traumatised by last week's revelations.

I think people should be very wary about taking direct action in the UK until the situation in Nottingham has been cleared up .The direct action grassroot anarchist animal liberation , anti-coal etc movements in Nottingham were infiltrated - some think controlled- by the police for many years .

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:32 AM

Ahh, that was it! Anyhoo, quite a neat play on Winston. And as I flagged up below, similar strategies appear to have been employed in anti-fascist propaganda. Not that this is necessarily the same thing of course, but it's still a valid approach IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:39 AM

Got any links Mayomick? I googled but found nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: mayomick
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:44 AM

I saw something about it on Indymedia UK , Crow Sister . It's the frontpage feature on that site at the moment I think , but they are playing it very close to their chests.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM

With the best will in the world, can somebody explain to me what Emma B means? People willing to face consequences are still ruddy criminals....

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:05 AM

Police infiltration of activist groups is nothing new - even apparently as 'provocateur'

From Tony Thompson The Observer, Sunday 14 March 2010

'Officer A reveals how the SDS operated totally outside the law: "If I were a regular police officer and I wanted to plant a bug in your house or your office, I would need to get all kinds of permissions. But the SDS can put a person in your car, in your house, in your life for 24 hours a day for five years, and nobody outside the SDS will know anything about it.

"Unlike regular undercover officers, members of the SDS do not have to gather evidence with a view to prosecuting their targets. This enables them to witness and even engage in criminal activity without fear of disciplinary action or compromising a subsequent court case".

Soon after he made contact with the YRE and his target, Officer A claims he gained his spurs as a provocateur. What began as a small demonstration turned, with his help, into a violent attack on the police. "That day developed into a major ruck", he says. "At the end no one would have believed I was a police officer.'

article

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:22 AM

"People willing to face consequences are still ruddy criminals.... "

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Louise McCauley Parks broke the law – she refused to obey the order of bus driver James Blake to give her seat to a white man. This led the conductor to call police and she was arrested

Starting out as a leader of an underground political movement called the African National Congress (ANC), Nelson Mandela played a part in many dramatic demonstrations against the white-ruled government. In 1962, he broke South African law and left the country without permission for a conference in Algeria and to raise funds for the ANC. On his return he was arrested, tried, and convicted

Ruddy/Bloody criminals?

Well yes 'criminals' by simple definition - they both knowingly broke the laws of their countries at the time
Do they deserve your 'expletive attributive'?

Whatever.......

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM

The animal rights terrorists were convicted on evidence, not on the inadmissible hearsay of undercover people.

I am as much for individual freedom as anybody and as an ex miner, I recall being stopped in the street during the strike and my rights curtailed by policemen with no insignia.

But there is always a tipping point and if infiltration helps rid the streets of terrorists who target people carrying on legitimate work, work that is for the eventual benefit of all, and society at large is a better place and scum are behind bars. When one criminal was asked why he endangered the lives of people in order to pursue his "animal rights" he stated he was not specist. That is personality disorder that we pay our taxes to be protected from.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:10 AM

@bonzo

I think you should check some of the anti-avoidance common law, bonzo.

@mrfluids - I was looking for you elsewhere, actually, and the urban dictionary popped up. It does seem to fit your behaviour.    You should also look up some of the basic constitutional law theories about legitimacy of government before you run of at the mouth about democratic legitimacy.

@the christmas turkey your views about the deficit have been wholly laid waste by mandotim on another thread. A rational view I might consider. One that subordinates humanity to profit is unlikely to find favour. Try holding your breath until the pension improvement arrives.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:46 AM

I have done, and I seemed to go a bit further, in that I understand it too.

My behaviour? Disagreeing with your utopian fantasies is tantamount to a rather disgusting sexual act? Now we are talking.... At least we are on a level now, not taking each other seriously. Nice to see you were looking for me. You don't have to look too hard you know...

Legitimacy of government in the UK sense starts with the basis that we have no political constitution, so that's your theory up the spout to begin with. The party or coalition of parties that feel they can form a government pop over to Buckingham palace and get the seals of office. Once that is done, legitimacy under UK law and custom is observed.

Of course, if you don't like constitutional monarchy, you could always stand for parliament on that ticket, but our legitimate government is on that basis. if you get hot under the collar about manifesto pledges, you must go through life one utterly disillusioned bloke. Manifesto pledges are a hostage to fortune that the media insist are published. If a party said they would look at situations as they occur and try to make a pragmatic decision with their overall vision in mind, Murdoch et al would not be amused, yet I might be tempted to join 'em. Hell, I might even stand for them... I don't like false promises either, but these are politicians we are speaking of, not the multi national conglomerates who actually run the Western world. You don't vote for them, silly...

Protest in order to ensure law makers have your opinion in mind is totally legitimate, but rattling on about a government not being legitimate is a rather irresponsible comment from somebody who wishes to be taken seriously? And then to come up with a phrase like "constitutional law theories of government." By 'eck, the arms on your armchair must be worn through with the excitement of coming up with that one!

(All this on the basis that I am now referred to as Mr Fluids. Steamin' Willie will do please. After all, I refer to you as Richard bridge, both whilst pointing and laughing as Steamin' Willie or when in your company.)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:09 PM

I don't think any of these posters expect to be taken seriously!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:02 PM

"I don't think any of these posters expect to be taken seriously!!!"

I think that should be that none of 'we posters' take you seriously, Bonzo, perhaps?

Just had a conversation with an electrician who was telling me that next week he has to pay over £400 to have his *yearly* certificate granted to him, which proves he's er..an electrician...and is capable of doing his job...

Clever, ain't it? You test people **yearly** and charge 'em a fortune for the privilege...Sparks were, quite appropriately, flying out of my phone as he spoke.

So, would someone care to explain to me WHY he has to pay over four HUNDRED pounds to a bloke to decide if he can do his job or not???

It's like living in Russia...!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM

Funny Mr Fluids. I saw another post of yours somewhere today that almost directly referred to the practices to which, according to the Urban Dictionary, your soubriquet appears to refer.

You have overlooked the principles of legitimation of forms of government set out by (amongst others) Hobbes and Rawls. If you are ignorant, you really should not pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:45 PM

PS. You should also consider the discussion by Parpworth, Pollard, and Hughes of Beetham's views on democratic deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM

Nothing to do with this thread (again) but if I were looking for an electrician I would certainly ONLY look for one that is 'registered' - that is a voluntary annual assessment/certification process which demonstrates competence.

Information can be found at the Electrical Contractors' Association for anyone genuinely interested.

I have no idea if any comparable scheme operates in Russia however

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

No, what I was meaning wasn't about whether someone is qualified, that *is* a good thing to know. It's that they have to pay someone from a newly set up idea over £400 *every* single year just so they'll say "Oh yes, by jove you ARE an electrician and still as qualified as you were *last* year!"

It's simply another way to make tons and tons of money, making life more and more regimented, more controlled than it has ever been before..

And tell me, WHY does it cost HUNDREDS of pounds purely to give someone the yearly "OK" ?

It's another example of corruption gone insane...and yet another reason to take to the streets with banners held high.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:56 PM

According to their website the ECA has 'been in buisness for over a hundred years' so I'm not sure if that really qualifies as a 'newly set up idea'

I will certainly be, health permitting, protesting against the ideological dissolution of the welfare state but not some 'campaign' against voluntary schemes for acrediting skilled tradesmen!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:14 AM

I used to be a mining electrician, so all my stuff was paid for by the coal board. I was aware though, even back then, that many apprentices in other industries had to pay their dues, including revalidation.

My wife is a consultant surgeon. Her GMC registration annual fee, her medical defence dues, revalidation costs, BMA dues etc etc come to over £3K per year. Like most consultants, her only income is from her NHS employment, (although that is exceedingly good. Not as good as the press would have you believe, but still very generous.) Unlike my experience 35 years ago, her employer does not pay these dues, but she has to send them (by law) copies of her having paid her GMC dues in order to keep her job and licence to practice.

This is repeated in many professions, not just electricians and doctors. Although I no longer practice, as a chartered engineer, I too have professional fees. I am not sure why professional validation is an issue here?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:19 AM

Richard;

Stop quoting texts for me to read. They are all opinions of comparing now with Utopia, sprinkled with pointing out the holes in our imperfect system. I will agree that the system should be such that government can be shown to have more legitimacy, but that is hugely diferent to saying it has no legitimacy. Given your background and profession, I would have expected better, even allowing for your radical armchair conscience.

Oh, names...

Dunno about urban dictionary, but you don't need either it nor Rogers Profanasaurus to know what a Richard is.....

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:54 AM

"I have already phoned my MP and complained about some of the things happening. That is what people need to do. Bombard your MP's"
Or do nothing, which amounts to the same thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:03 AM

You may have a point Jim, but for the moment, it's about all I can do.
It's time to get the petitions going me thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:20 AM

Whoops - sent that off before I intended
It was estimated that over one million people took to the streets at the time that Blair and Bush mounted their illegal invasion of Iraq - the result - the government banned all demonstrations within a mile of Parliment illegal, no much for appealing to your MP
The only thing that an appeal to your MP achieves nowadays is to get your name on MI5's list as a potential agitator - thus opening the possibility of your being a candidate for 'special rendition' in times of crisis.
"if I were looking for an electrician I would certainly ONLY look for one that is 'registered"
Sorry Emma - I was a time-served electrician with a five years apprenticeship and certificates under my belt, who, at the age of forty-five I was told I had to go back to school, sit an paper-based exam devised by desk-pilots who had never picked up a screwdriver or pliers in their lives, and if I was able to answer their questions, I would be awarded the privelege of paying an enormous registration fee and be presented with a sticker for the side of my van which 'supposedly' proved I was able to do my job.
I became self-employed and spent the rest of my working life as an unregistered electrician with more work than I could possibly cope with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:38 AM

Thing is Jim, here I am, a time served sparky, also a chartered engineer, and I had some work done on my house recently that included extension work and new installation...

I had to get my son to sign it off and issue a certificate. Interestingly, one small issue regarding the size of an unblanked hole in the top of the consumer unit. Had to sort it before he signed it... (Moaned like hell, but proud as hell at the same time. Confusing for a simple soul like me.)

I do like the recent change in legislation as it does make it more difficult for cowboys and chancers. Gas engineers have had this for years.

That said, it does raise the cost of being a tradesman, and that has to be passed on to customers.

My point was that measuring the term "competent" and giving consumers a safety net is the best option for safety and quality, (dunno what other options tick enough boxes?) so I questioned how it got on a thread about direct action... (?)

In terms of the cost of registration, regulation and validation? I am comfortable with it being borne by those who seek to profit from it. (Subsidised training for new careers is a good thing, but once there... You have chosen a trade with a commercial aspect. That certificate is an asset to success, not an imposition.)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM

The problem is Willie that the registration process does not give any such safety net - not in my experience anyway.
What it does is invalidate my five years apprenticeship and my half century's worth of practical experience on the tools, and replaces them with a certificate for being able to pass exams.
The old apprenticeship scheme guaranteed that any tradesman had undergone at least five years practical experience (which is not the case with registration) and any customer asking for more was fully entitled to demand a City and Guilds or Higher National Certificate, and there are enough voluntary Guilds for a tradesman to register with.
My objection is that towards the end of my working life I was required to go back to school, then pay highly for the privelege of continuing to work at a job I had spent most of my life at - stuff that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:17 AM

You can't beat five years carrying a blokes tools followed by seeing every situation you could ever come across, granted.

Neither is registration a safety net, although having an idea of how to work within the IEE Regs is a prerequisite. Based on that, validation is about the best a consumer can expect in practical terms.

However, this does not address a time served expert with years and years under his belt suddenly having to go back to school to be taught by people with no experience, and to be sat next to some kid who has been to a few classes and then is given a piece of paper that says in law he is at your level. That galls, but be buggered if I know what the answer is. Interestingly, as part of what I do these days, it includes a warrant that allows me access to health and social care environments. (I don't use it, but it is there..) I had four days of role play and instruction on using PACE etc, followed by writing up what we did. They called this few sheets of paper a portfolio. I handed that in and in return was given a BTEC Level 5 qualification. When I checked, level 5 means it is seen by the academic world as the same as a foundation degree, or the HND that took me three years of night school to get! Qualifications alone seem increasingly to be a measure of national education levels rather than actual attainment of an individual.....

My wife has to keep abreast of the ever changing world of surgery, so most evenings whilst I am brushing the dog, in the pub, whatever, she is reading up papers, ensuring she has read all the journals and recently the government decided they have to have annual assessment of their competence. The surprise for many is that the legal need for it is fairly new. Hitherto, many doctors only kept up to date out of professional obligation. As many inquests and fitness to practice hearings have found, this wasn't always the case.

So you start to understand how and why governments, insurance companies and ultimately consumers wish there to be some form of kite mark? (Not that my recent certificate makes me the next Morse!)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:02 AM

Too much bureaucracy and paperwork Steamin Willie.

There are many very skilled and talented people in this world, who can't or aren't allowed to do the job, because some academic insists on degrees, which for one reason or another are beyond that person.

So you get some stupid twat who reads the laws and cites the way things should be done, but is incapable of doing the manual part of the job. We are mean't to trust them.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:14 AM

@ Mr Fluids

You are close to the Paln position that inorance is bliss.

Read and understand the theories first, then go back and see the detailed explanation I gave as to why this government is not a legitimate government. It is not legitimate because it did nbot receive voter support for what it is generally doing. Indeed, a substantial majority of voters rejected such a course of action. It is not legitimate in that its first priorities were to change existing constitutional law to try to entrench its survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:16 AM

LOL it's a bit like the Labour Party then Richard :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

I'm still waiting for the people of Yeovil to be given the chance to have a re-vote on their MP, given that his expenses irregularities were not exposed until after the election and one of the promises of the parties in government was that legislation would be put through to allow constituents to recall their MP

I received this from my MP (tory) in April.

"The short answer to your question is that currently there is no mechanism to remove a sitting Member of Parliament if they have broken the rules. All a political party can currently do is effectively withdraw their Party membership. This is not acceptable and why I have felt for some time that there is a need for a recall mechanism to allow voters to petition for the removal of their MP where they have been found to have broken the rules. I am pleased that this proposal is now in my own Party's manifesto and has all party backing."

Given that it has "all party backing" and that the scandals were revealed years ago, where is the action? And why does it appear the reverse is happening by the entrenchment of a possibly unpopular government for five years?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

Expenses

Still an MP

May even come back

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:52 AM

Richard III just said that, if I read correctly, the government does not have the will of the people.

So, which member of parliament sitting in the house didn't get the most number of votes in his or her constituency?

Crossing the benches is a trick that has been going on since Pitt the Younger. We vote a person into Parliament. They generally nail their flag to a party mast, but are allowed under the rules not to take the whip.

I will be the first to agree that as there was no first past the post in the last election, policies will be compromised and bartered. this is also admissible. People may or may not like it, and both main parties have argued over the years for retaining first past the post, so that mandates can be carried through. if you don't get an overall majority, your options are to either try to get a compromise with another party or two, or call another election.

In case nobody realised, another election straight away would give the IMF the jitters, bugger up our national credit rating and make recovery even harder. Difficult decisions would become very difficult decisions.

I don't like some of their decisions either. Their insistence that benefit fraud takes priority over other measures is slightly disingenuous. That said, don't confuse priorities with need for action. There are many many people for whom society should be shouldering responsibility, but there is also a culture of lifestyle choice with many people. Any action to get a wake up call out to those people is a welcome one.

In the meantime, can anybody tell me what direct action can do to bolster up the economy? I have read many genuine views of what shouldn't be scrutinised by the government but precious little (apart from the eat the rich brigade) about what should be looked at?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

It's the usual feral reaction of the envious, typified by their rabid hatred of anyone who by dint of hard work, or otherwise, has amassed a little more of life's benefits than they.

Instead of recognising that, in the current circumstances, we are all in for some degree of financial pain, they take the view "everybody else should take a hit but me!"

What appals me is seeing someone who is supposed, and trained, to be a promoter and supporter of the rule of law, advocating direct and violent action, and in fact revolution. I'm also entirely underwhelmed by his capacity for nasty, borderline libellous, ad hominem attacks upon anyone who disagrees with his exalted knowledge of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

If that is an example of the legal profession in this country, then they are the problem, not the solution. However, I do believe that he is the exception which proves the rule.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:53 PM

"the usual feral reaction of the envious, typified by their rabid hatred of anyone who by dint of hard work, or otherwise, has amassed a little more of life's benefits than they."

Umm no Don, I'm opposed to the destruction of the welfare state, which I percieve (I'll confess I might be wrong of course) to be an opportunist ideological one on behalf of the current Tory dominated coalition rather than a genuine necessity. Your characterisation of those who oppose the current coalitions economic strategies, as bitter workshy "haters" is quite painful. I had some promise when I was younger, I was even ambitious! I doubt I've ever discussed the serious illness which meant I could never fulfill my ambitions. I'm not bitter about those who can however, but I must fight for what little I have been granted and not merely for me of course, but for those who (by the grace of god etc.) who have even less...

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:08 PM

"It's the usual feral reaction of the envious, typified by their rabid hatred of anyone who by dint of hard work, OR OTHERWISE, has amassed a little more of life's benefits than they"

I'm not envious but I still think it is an outrage when an MP can claim £40,000 of taxpayers money to which he is not entitled AND keep his job AND still be described as a man of great integrity !!! It beggars belief and would not be accepted as plausible in a work of fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 07:20 AM

"It's the usual feral reaction of the envious, typified by their rabid hatred of anyone who by dint of hard work, or otherwise, has amassed a little more of life's benefits than they."

Why is it "feral" and "rabid"? I think "civilised" and "considered" would be more approriate and "hatred" and "envious" are totally stupid words to use. But I'm glad you added the "otherwise". Anyway, like I said elsewhere - it's an old discredited, banal chestnut of an argument used by anyone bereft of a real understanding of why people seek equality or at least a fair deal for the less well-off. Perhaps you should look up the word "altruism", Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 07:26 AM

"I'm not envious but I still think it is an outrage when an MP can claim £40,000 of taxpayers money to which he is not entitled AND keep his job AND still be described as a man of great integrity !!! It beggars belief and would not be accepted as plausible in a work of fiction."

But have you audited each of his expense claims to ensure compliance with the rules laid down by the labour government?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:28 AM

""Why is it "feral" and "rabid"? I think "civilised" and "considered" would be more approriate and "hatred" and "envious" are totally stupid words to use.""

The responses of some on this thread (and I would like to point out that I do not number Crow Sister, Tam, or any others like them among this group), are indeed rabid, and full of hatred of anyone who either has money, or by reason of being privately educated, is perceived by them to be a toff who is living on money stolen from the poor.

They are feral in that they advocate violent direct action (eg Richard Bridge's "Revolution") as an ideological choice, rather than any attempt at a civilised and considered response.

They are envious because they do not want equality, but rather the destruction of those whom they consider to be too rich.

In short, I stand by what I said, and if you don't know why, read some of the posts above (thoroughly this time), and consider what has happened to every country on this planet which tried to live with equality.

Go take a look at the country whose ruler you all love so much. Look at the state of housing in Havana. Look at the recycled wrecks the call transport, and then stand in the street and ask why, then when/if you get out of jail, and get slung out of the country, you might know something about the way it's run.

Until you have an alternative to the way capital and labour interact in this country, and nobody ever found one yet, it's as good as it gets.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, Bonzo just for once has come up with a sensible point. I loathe corruption as much as the next man but I want more than the word of a Newspaper article in evidence before I start calling for a rope and a strong tree.

The police weren't able to put him away, presumably because he hadn't broken the law.

Quite a few of the so-called expenses fiddles were in fact never actually passed by the fees office.

One example was the much mentioned (by the left) Duck House.

Something along these lines was the true sequence of events.

MP: I've built a duck house in the lake of the property I bought, and I want to know whether I can claim back the cost.

Fees Office: NO!

MP: O.K.

Now some may see that as a fiddle, but only if they are trying to sell more papers.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM

"Go take a look at the country whose ruler you all love so much."

If you mean Castro, yet again you are making totally unfounded assumptions. Socialism and communism are not the same thing. Perhaps a little education in basic politcis would help. Really Don you are just making your own statements and then arguing against them. Oh well, enjoy yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

It amazes me that you people have nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon than sit in front of a computer??????

Just had a superb bife chorizo followed by flan casero, washed down with a glass of Tapiz Malbec - Argentine of course.

Now what were you whinging about??

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM

""Really Don you are just making your own statements and then arguing against them. Oh well, enjoy yourself.""

No Mate!

I am arguing about the political retards who think that revolution and/or violent direct action are a justifiable political tool, and advocate their use on the streets of MY country.

Look at history and tell me where you see benefits derived from violence that could not have been improved upon with sensible debate.

Democracy won at the point of a gun is valueless, because the resentments remain, and sooner or later ignite more violence.

Had the Western allies treated Germany less harshly in 1918, we might never have seen the rise to power of the Nazis in the thirties, and we might now have many millions alive, who perished in the resulting second World War.

I would rather be living with the problems of that boost to the population, than with the results of that war.

What I hate most, is those who can't distinguish between the human being and his actions, and therefore hate in a personal fashion, rather than trying to concentrate on issues.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

I think you are lumping me with the wrong people Don... I am for revolution and I do hate wealthy toffs who have no care for those less fortunate.

Those who think it is fine to avoid tax and evade humanitarian issues because the law permits it and because you can't legislate morality.

I am thoroughly fed up with being the middle class bearing the burden of the poor. Not because of the number of poor, but because the rich who have the means to decrease the number of poor, by paying a fair percentage of tax on their earnings and investing in education and living wage industry, do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:01 PM

"Those who think it is fine to avoid tax and evade humanitarian issues because the law permits it and because you can't legislate morality."



How can I get it through to your probable fat head that it is perfectly satisfactory to reduce one's tax liabilities in accordance with current tax legislation - lady you are stark raving bonkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

Bonzo - and you complain that people resort to insulting you and calling you names.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

Bonzo

Then it's your position that anything that's not illegal is de facto morally acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: TheSilentOne
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:21 PM

Oops! The 12:16 post was by me not VT, she left herself logged in on my PC and I didn't notice I wasn't me (if you know what I mean)!!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

""I think you are lumping me with the wrong people Don... I am for revolution and I do hate wealthy toffs who have no care for those less fortunate.""

Tam, I specifically said that I don't consider you or CS to be a part of that group, and I agree with all that you say about morally bankrupt rich people who just don't care, but come on, you are far too intelligent to think that all rich people who don't care are ipso facto Tories.

I expect that kind of crap from Richard Bridge, because he is a million miles to the left of Josef Stalin, and can't see past the labels to what's in the can.

There are good, and bad, people on both sides of this argument, and it is the likes of RB who so obscure that fact as to make it impossible to achieve any productive dialogue.

There are good rich people, and there are bad rich people, and whatever RB may think, both good and bad exist within the ranks of New Labour, Libdems and Tories.

It is flawed stereotypical thinking on all sides which prevents them from getting together to make a difference.

Rabid antis (whatever their political stripe) are not part of the solution. They are the whole of the problem.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM

Don
I did not mistake what you said when you said you didn't include me with the "rabids." And I didn't say all the rich. I said the rich who....

I agree that morally corrupt rich can be of any political stripe... Cherie Blair comes to mind. If you ask me the new labour under Tony was merely a disguised conservative government. But I believe with all my being that the Tories are more predisposed to that trait. If they really believed that work will get people off the dole, then why don't they invest in education and industry here?

I knew loads of conservatives in the US (hell, I used to be one in my baptist days) who were selfish bigoted bastards. Many of today's politicians are not that different from the Reagan / Thatcher "me first" exclusive preppies of the 1980s.

And I consider myself to be further left than Richard Bridge. I am getting to the point of exasperation where I want their possessions and position removed or I want them sterilised so they can't bequeath their wealth with impunity to a litter of like minded spawn.

That rabid enough for you?

Sorry Don... I like you personally, but I do not agree with you politically.

All politics is about scaring the public into being led, like sheep. It all stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:04 PM

Don, I've walked and worked both sides of the street. This assists me to tell right from wrong.

Exploiting the poor to give to the rich is morally unjustifiable. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is often morally justifiable. If the system cannot rectify the ability of the rich to steal from the poor then the system is wrong. The ability of the haves to exploit the have-nots was reduced by the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention, but the trend in this country towards increased inequality is incontrovertible proof that there is still a wrong. Remarkably, it is a wrong that you have yourself suffered, yet you seek to support those who disadvantage you.



Bent accountant and bodyfluids - The principle in IRC -v- Westminster is part of the problem.

The duty to contribute to society is not purely a statutory construct. It is the basis of a workable society. Humans are fallible, but the English principles of statutory interpretation and precedent have ossified the ability of governments to collect the taxes that are part of their manifesto commitments. It is thus the avoiders who undermine a participatory democracy.

The place to start would be a tax code built on the principle that it is the duty of the citizen to contribute - reversing IRC -v- Westminster, and greatly widening the principles in IRC v Ramsay (1981) followed by Furniss v. Dawson (1984) and indeed putting such principles on a statutory footing.


In European VAT law the principle of "abuse of right" may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Abuse_of_Rights_II_WHA_-_the_Elephant_on_Closer_Inspection_HLM.pdf

This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 05:33 PM

Neutralising tax avoidance is never going to repair the damage.
For Capitalism to work "satisfactorally" there must be profits for those who invest capital.
Thats why the financial system was de-regulated, to allow profits to be made and generate growth in the economy. The results of the credit boom should have been obvious to everyone, but to a government which required ever increasing amounts of revenue, to finance the war, the unemployed, the incapacitated, a health service creaking at the seams, a bloated public sector and deptments to manage every sort of "minority right" that you could imagine, the credit boom must have seemed like a gift from god.

Capitalism is cyclical, as a nation we can no longer compete in manufacturing or heavy industry, and even if we could the future markets will all be in the underdeveloped East.

No point in turning the discussion into a fight between rich and poor, personalities dont matter, as a capitalist economy we can no longer pay our way, we are no longer viable and are being left to rot.
Such is the M.O. of capitalism

We have the options of following Willie and Don into a future where the ultra rich determine how we behave and how we think, and they will be aided in that by the "liberal classes".....just as todays Liberal party ditched their avowed priciples for a sniff of power.

Or we can start working for the removal of capitalism and its replacement with a more natural society, driven not by greed and financial status, but by the promotion of environmental conservation and real local government.
This option will probably take generations....but I for one could not live out the rest of my days in Don n' Willie's "paradise"

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM

Don't follow me anywhere, especially somewhere I was never going...

I never said the system was fair, I never said the rich should determine anything. I just stated that the symbiosis of wealth to fund social obligations fits in with democracy. The idea of "eat the rich" lasts until you have squandered the initial money, then where does it come from?

I am not interested in Osborne's millions he has now, but the ability for those millions today to perpetuate into feeding the economy in the long term. The so called rich cannot eat their money, they have to send it out to work. This then does two things; makes even more money and funds productivity that leads to taxes that leads to a social program.

I said before that the relationship between public and private sector is more important now than before, because we recirculate money rather than make more, as we did when we were a manufacturing nation.

Richard III said above that taking from the poor to give to the rich is not morally justifiable but taking from the rich to give to the poor is. Mmmm... You can't help your "poor" with nice ideas, you help them by raising the bar, and that needs money. The Robin hood idea works in terms of the richer you are the more you pay, and that is taking from the rich and giving to the poor I suppose. I pay 50% tax this year, and have no issue with doing so.

Of course, Richard III's idea that those who pay more also should have less say in how it is spent falls down at the first hurdle.

We are a democracy. My view is as valid as yours, and in my opinion, less dangerous.

This government has to clean up its act, especially with the "all in it together" hostage to fortune the Prime Minister gave himself.   We do need them to follow through their plans to fund the welfare state through closing tax loopholes, taxing the banks more, increasing contributions from richer people and everything else they claim to be wanting to do.

Direct Action? What's the chant? "DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING TO DO! NOT WHAT THE GUARDIAN TELL US YOU ARE!"

I don't support them, I don't agree with much of what they think is going to clear the deficit. in fact I find myself closer to Ed Milliband than I am comfortable with in truth. But whilst demonstrations to remind them of the issues are a good thing, I for one cannot take seriously any alternative to lowering the deficit and putting the country back on an even keel. If we don't the more vulnerable in society will suffer the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:38 PM

""This option will probably take generations....but I for one could not live out the rest of my days in Don n' Willie's "paradise"!""

You really amuse me Ake.

You say that the change will take generations, then that you couldn't live out your life in our "paradise" (kindly point to the posts in which either Willie or myself called it paradise).

I have some bad news for you. If it takes even half a generation you'll f**king well have to.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:01 AM

All I ask Don, is that folks start to understand the true nature of capitalism.
Under the fascism which is about to "evolve", such understanding will be "actively discouraged".