winjer
holocene death beat
If picketing was not entirely lawful in itself, why were specific laws enacted to criminalize it?
NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]
- Thread starter where to
- Start date
I would draw a distinction between the tactics themselves (which he certainly was involved in developing, not least because those used (dispersal, primarily) during the Poll Tax disturbances had a serious downside (running mobs looting shops in all directions)) and the application of those tactics which became significantly more robust / blunt instrument-like after his time.
Because peaceful picketing was not, as you well know, what it still was - it was threats and intimidation, and taking the dispute to other places not directly associated with the issue, which the legislation sought to confront, not picketing per se which remains perfectly legal. Picketing is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your message to the people who you wnat to get your message to at a time and place that they are likely to take note of it.
revol68
what, fucking what?
you silly muppet, the existence of workers and employers isn't some natural eternal law of nature, the state used the full force of itself to create it and it uses the full force of itself to make sure that this power imbalance is maintained.
this is why your universal law is a sham, because one class has nothing but themselves to sell and the other owns the means by which that class can re/produce itself and allows them access to it only on it's draconian terms, on the basis that it expands their capital and their interests. The fundamental role of the police is to ensure the sanctity of property.
I have never said that they are our only two choices, have I?
So why pose the question that way?
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Indeed. That is just fantastic.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
The guy who disagrees with a strike does have a right to oppose it. He has that right in the democratic vote for strike action. He has the right to put his case and vote against. He has the right to try to persuade others to oppose it.Once that vote has been taken and the decision for strike action has been made however he has lost his argument and is then obliged by the principles of workers democracy to abide by the decision of his fellow workers. Just as those who support strike action are obliged to abide by any decision NOT to strike. He does not have the right to selfishly ignore that democratic decision and break the strike. If he does he is a scab and his fellow workers have a moral and democratic right to enforce the picket line by kicking his stinking scabbing teeth in.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
They pass a democratic decision when they vote for strike action. A picket line is intended to enforce that democratic decision. A picket line is never intended to peacefully express a point of view. A picket line is a form of workers policing. Without physical enforcement or the possibility of enforcement, a picket line is worthless.
_angel_
.
Yep they were always going to go up, once the principle had been introduced basically.
Lol irony.
There is a simple reason for that. Voter turn-out at elections is proportionately higher amongst pensioners than young people. That may be about to change, certainly political mobilisation and activism amongst the young looks set to increase markedly.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Well of course the demographic and voting potential plays a large part, but even so, some of the spending commitments and the lack of obvious cuts for services to the older population still strikes me as being surprisingly skewed. The discontent amongst the crumblies probably won't start surfacing until local authority spending cuts to local services properly kicks in over next few months and years.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
can we PLEASE get rid of this ridiculous tabloidesque bollox that all 80s pickets were rentathug types. They were not;they were workers showing solidarity with other workers and telling scabs, to their face, what they thought of them, and it is precisely that class solidarity the bosses and their meejah mates fear, and would love to destrtoy - and you're falling for their lies.
That isn't to say feelings don't run high on a picket line - they do, inevitably so where people's livelihoods are concerned - but that's a mile away from the 'line' peddled as all pickets beeing braindead bootboys
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
absolutely spot on, that's what TU membership means
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
It's the "give a dog a bad name" approach essentially. If we say that all of the pickets were violent thugs often enough, people will start to believe us. Same as if we say that Ian Tomlinson was involved in aggressive behaviour against the police, and that when ambulance crews attended, they were bottled, then they will believe us. Same as if we say that the student rioters were actually anarchist deviants often enough, then people will believe this too.
It wears thin after a while.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
not if you are a member of the TU and you have exercised to the fullest, your right to take part in a strike debate and ballot by campaigning against a strike, but then lost that ballot. There is such a thing as solidarity, and standing by your own, and anyone who betrays that is vermin
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Fine. you dont understand a thing about democracy then. Which is hardly surprising.
Scabs are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable for ce to stop them.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
hope it does, cos IME the old 'uns make great campaigners, and give ballast gto just about any community campaign. They've all thatfree time, and they remember a more militant age
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Like the solidarity between steel workers, miners and railway workers?
Louis MacNeice
No no no you've got it wrong, the poor dears were lead into trouble by those deviant anarchists
Acting Detective Inspector Will Hodgson, who is leading Operation Malone, said the vast majority of those arrested were students.
He said: “Unfortunately, we are finding that many of these people are young students who do not seem to have been in any trouble before. It appears they may have been provoked by more anarchist groups. - Evening Standard
Yeah, I agree there are problems. Free concessionary bus passes for millionaire pensioners I have never agreed with. Clearly they should be means tested. It would certainly be better for those with aspirations to be more economically active (which would help with that) such as the unemployed and those on low incomes to get them.
The moves to lengthen retirement ages and even abolish them altogether are highly problematic too. The very act of retirement usually frees up a job, as long as the company has a need to replace the lost labour with a new start. A worker retiring can also stimulate a re-shuffle, and promotions here and there, putting more wages (and spending power) in the hands of a younger worker.
People working excessive hours, in one or more jobs needs to be tackled too. Unemployment could be slashed within weeks if people selfishly hogging too many working hours or too many jobs was tackled.
It wasn't a question - I was simply emphasising just how important I felt it was for us to invest in the young.So why pose the question that way?
But, as usual, the usual suspects waded in, entirely misrepresenting what I had said and the context I had said it in. And everyone else that believed what they said I said rather than what I said I said. Go read my original post and you'll see exactly how I used it.
I understand the point you are making ... but I am not sure at all that there are well understood and accepted "principles of worker's democracy" that obliges the individual to do anything. Even if they did, it would only be something which could be enforced as a type of contract. Nothing can be enforced by force or threats of force. (And I certainly don't agree that if those who wanted to strike are outvoted that they have to continue working - they are still perfectly entitled to make their own decision and, if they want, to withdraw their labour and no-one can force them to do otherwise by use or threat of force).
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
No you didn't. You included the 'infirm' to your list of social cleansing.
You've really showed your true colours.
You talk of "worker's democracy". It is a strange democracy that can only enforce it's decisions by physical means ... (And, in law, there is absolutely no basis for your claim that a strike decision can be enforced by physical action ... you can argue that is should be, and that the law should be changed, but, as things stand, there is simply no basis for it and the police have no option but to prevent it - they cannot unilaterally decide to make new law.
Not before time. Preparing students for exercising their vote in our system should be a compulsory part of the curriculum (for 15-16 year olds every year, not just with some focused attention every four years at election time, though that should be increased too - schools, colleges and universities should make it their target to ensure that every student exercises their right to vote or, if they choose not to do so, they do it from an informed position).
Oh do shut up.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Every contract can only be enforced by the threat of force. It's how the system works.
The rest of your post shows you dont have a clue about the principal of workers', or really any other kind of, democracy.
Don't you believe it ... try listening to You and Yours on Radio 4 ...
I have not suggested all 80s pickets were "rentathug types". I have simply pointed out that by then there was significantly more force, threats of force and general intimidation being used than had previously been the case and that this was principally what much of the legislation (not all, I accept) and the policing tactics were concerned with. To deny that there was much more violence is simply either blinkered or revisionist.
To clarify: I have absolutely no problem at all with non-violent picketing. I have no problem with some degree of pushing, shoving and shouting. But violence, threats of violence and general intimidation of people who choose not to strike simply cannot be justified, any more that the State physically dragging people in to a place of work could be justified. (I assume that you broadly agree with this, as you are at pains to point out that not all pickets are "rentathug types" using violence, threats and intimidation ... )
Similar threads
