BS: Direct Action : UK

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".

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Rafflesbear
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

Expenses

Still an MP

May even come back

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: 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: 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 - 08:02 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,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: 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 - 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 - 06:20 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:39 AM

Got any links Mayomick? I googled but found nothing.