NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]
- Thread starter where to
- Start date
made me laugh
The funniest aspect is that he's explaining it to someone whose job it was to do exactly that.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
It's like raaaeeeeaaaiiinnnnn on your wedding day . . .
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
more of this pleaseDon't you believe it ... try listening to You and Yours on Radio 4 ...
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
is Alanis, like, your favorite late nite lady?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
hairy muff
winjer
holocene death beat
I don't think it's ever been more blunt-instrument like than Mayday 2001, when he was Gold, and he had the great plan to kettle everybody except the troublemakers.
Threats and intimidation are the basis of various specific offences, whereas the legislation was directed at all picketing, creating offences purely based the character of the assembly. The picketing which "remains perfectly legal" is the result of concessions won by earlier illegal industrial action.
Oh, and as I wasn't at all clear before: when I say criminalizing pickets I'm talking about the Combination Acts, the Statute of Artificers, and so on, not the 1980s.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
even tho' I kinda get what d-b is getting at - i think
The point is that they don't use force on either side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow all sides to carry on their lawful business.
Yeah. The miners' strike footage shows exactly that.
In respect of (a) you're sort of right. I certainly don't recognise the "class struggle" as usually drawn as being at all relevant to modern society. But I am deeply concerned about differential wealth and the power that is associated with great wealth. So much of our societies problems can be traced back to the gap between the richest and the poorest and I would support anything which reduced that gap. Personally I would like to have a maximum cap on income (no-one is worth many millions of pounds a year) and a bar on inherited wealth (everyone should be born equal and should be responsible for living their own lives (if they are able) and certainly no-one should be able to live their lives in unbelievable luxury without having ever to work themselves). I appreciate that there are serious practical difficulties with both of these ... but would support anything which moved in that general direction.
In relation to (b) I am probably "pro-State" as I very much believe in the Rule Of Law (applied equally to all) as one of our greatest benefits as a society (this probably also explains my reference to the legal basis of issues) ... but I am most definitely not pro-establishment. I detest the "Great and the Good" who have politics, directorships, committees, quangos and every fucking thing else sewn-up and passed around between them. If I had stayed in the police, and continued to seek promotion, I would have become one of the "establishment" ... that was one reason I left - I had no desire to do that at all. Positions of responsibility / power within our society should always be based on merit - what you know, not who you know (and usually brownnose). And I am not pro-status quo at all - our society is pretty good overall but has some very bad aspects which need to be addressed as a matter of some urgency before they cause more damage.
You may have an argument there (though there are counter arguments about the nature of the process and what exactly was being "decided") ... but if there is an issue it should be resolved through some legal or other process and not through the use of force.if people don't feel compelled at all to stand by the end result of a democratic process they fully participated in, whilst expecting the other side to, had the result gone the other way - why bother having the democratic process in the first place?
The State enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.
To be fair, I'm not at all sure that his plan was to contain "everyone except the troublemakers" - the fact that a significant number were missed was due to the fact that (a) they don't wear badges (bastards - life would be much easier for everyone if they did!) and (b) live intelligence gathering about who was, who wasn't and where thet were wasn't perfect.
I would certainly agree that the laws went further than they needed to address the threats and intimidation aspect and that their is scope to allow more robust picketing than is currently the case.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You miss the point - the threat of force is always there. It's what the state ultimately relies on.
How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
So the miners should have just rolled over and allowed thatcher and co to destroy their communities and economies?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
lol, jesus, this is astounding stuff. I wouldn't expect a 14 year old Government & Politics student to say anything as stupidly naive as this.
Yes, dear, they do, but only with the threat of force behind it. That's wht you were there for, the threat of force.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Anyone who uses a phase like 'the sensible left' obviusly has no interest in it (the 'left') or understanding of it.
If I'd said that someone would have asked me to add "IMO".
Similar threads
