|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 10, 2010 21:59:08 GMT 1
It's a bit like saying a girl in a short skirt on a Saturday night is asking for it. I really find it hard to believe you can actually say that.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 10, 2010 22:16:52 GMT 1
It's a bit like saying a girl in a short skirt on a Saturday night is asking for it. I really find it hard to believe you can actually say that. snapped this one of Jaytee at Parliament Square...quite topical.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 10, 2010 22:38:29 GMT 1
And if there had been one big peaceful demonstration yesterday (and therefore far less coverage of the protests), where would we be now? Vote won by the government, job done, that's where. As it is, the debate goes on and it's not just a debate about the actions of a minority. In fact it's not just a debate about tuition fees. It's become a much wider debate about our politics and democracy, as well as those detailed matters. Your illiberal views on Wikileaks are surprising to me. Have you read what's been released? Have you listened to the comments of the more thoughtful members of the US administration, who say there's no evidence of any lives being put at risk by the US embassy cable leaks, or by the earlier Afghanistan war logs, or by the Iraq war logs? Are you just listening to the irresponsible idiots who say Julian Assange's actions are treasonable and he should be assassinated or kidnapped? Wikileaks has committed no crime (and I would love to see those idiots prosecuted for incitement). It receives information from whistleblowers and, in the case of the US embassy cables, it works with responsible outlets (The Guardian, the New York Times) to vet and release them. None of that is criminal. So if it's not criminal and no-one's at risk, why would we want Wikileaks to be shut down? The US administration is embarrassed and reacts like a bully to its embarrassment. Wikileaks was fine when it was exposing corruption and wrongdoing in and by other countries (check its history if you think it's just an organisation of "jumped up idiots". It has exposed a lot that needed exposing). As soon as it releases anything detrimental to the US government, it's criminalised, hounded, shut down. How very democratic. Free speech, freedom of the press - they're only worth having if that freedom is genuine. If it's turned off the moment anything vaguely against the interests of western governments is said (and I emphasise governments, not people), then it's no freedom at all. Next time Obama or (God help us) Palin or whoever gets all teary eyed about the virtues of freedom and the evils of state censorship and oppression, I'll be thinking "yeah, right and I believe Nick Clegg's pledge to abolish tuition fees as well". That's why I applaud the actions of Wikileaks (which will survive with or without Julian Assange) and why I applaud the actions of Anonymous in standing up to those organisations still not satisfied they've got quite enough control of our lives. Free speech means free press and free internet - as in not controlled. This thread has shown B&A at its best constructive discussion without any hint of the usual personal insults. I believe in free speech but along side that freedom comes a responsible. That responsibility affects the press and the internet. We all know on here that there are limits to our freedom of speech. Many of us are told confidences that we do not broadcast because of the consequences to the person who told us, or the effect disclosure would have. Surely on a much more important stage politicians and consulate staff must have the freedom to express their opinions in private without the risk of it appearing on the internet. Much of what Wiki leaks is tittle tattle do I really want to know that William Hague, Cameron and Osborne believe they are the children of Thatcher just makes me worried that any sane person would want to be related to Mark and Carole. I am afraid that you have more faith in the media to decide what we should read than I have. At the end of the day for all its liberal tradition the Guardian is in the business of selling newspapers. A bit like the Telegraph and the MP's expenses the more outragous the better for sales. It really worries me that if wiki had been around 20 years ago publishing confidential information do you think we would have a relatively peaceful Northern Ireland or seen the end of apartheid in South Africa? Now, will the leaks assist or hinder the resolution of the situations in Korea or Iran? I'm all for the freedom of speech as long as the speaker shows responsibility, it is too late to bolt the stable door once the horse has bolted.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2010 23:32:55 GMT 1
What ever the proportion of Wikileaks' output that is tittle tattle the US government reaction to it is a warning. It's interesting to see how quickly companies have snapped into line and tried to cut off Wikileaks at the knees: Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Amazon.
Freedom of speech as long as the speaker shows responsibility. Is that responsibility self-censorship?
We didn't get here by accident. The Iraq War was justified on the basis of "intelligence" that was tittle tattle. People were hoodwinked into that war. The current economic crisis. People are getting hoodwinked into believing that it's about government expenditure. That the the banks are a side issue that can be resolved by increasing capital requirements replacing bonuses with higher basic salaries and the banks stumping up for the Big Society bank.
Trust has been damaged by political dishonesty and economic troughing on a massive scale.
|
|
|
Post by eggyshrew on Dec 10, 2010 23:34:45 GMT 1
As soon as the elections had finished i thought to myself can see Thatcher days coming back straight away. This country is in a mess no matter who of the so called BIG 3 is in power. Picking 1 anothers mess up, along with unforfilled promises and borrowing cash you aint got. When will this Country wake up to reality, when its no longer is my feeling.
|
|
scotland
Shropshire County League
Posts: 88
|
Post by scotland on Dec 10, 2010 23:51:10 GMT 1
Good on the young people great to see them make a stance did not think they had the bottle. The young are the future of this country and con and libs will never win anther election .
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 11, 2010 0:15:59 GMT 1
Good on the young people great to see them make a stance did not think they had the bottle. The young are the future of this country and con and libs will never win anther election . And what a future these well educated little darlings have shown us Once you resort to violence the argument is lost.
|
|
scotland
Shropshire County League
Posts: 88
|
Post by scotland on Dec 11, 2010 1:40:53 GMT 1
Not all of then resorted to violence shame on the ones that caused all the trouble .They were out of order .The genuine ones was there for a purpose to show what they thought of the vote that was taking place.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 11, 2010 2:29:47 GMT 1
And what a future these well educated little darlings have shown us Once you resort to violence the argument is lost. Unfortunately, history teaches that this is not always so. Some of those little darlings you patronise can probably thank their education for teaching them this.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 11, 2010 3:07:32 GMT 1
This thread has shown B&A at its best constructive discussion without any hint of the usual personal insults. I believe in free speech but along side that freedom comes a responsible. That responsibility affects the press and the internet. We all know on here that there are limits to our freedom of speech. Many of us are told confidences that we do not broadcast because of the consequences to the person who told us, or the effect disclosure would have. Surely on a much more important stage politicians and consulate staff must have the freedom to express their opinions in private without the risk of it appearing on the internet. Much of what Wiki leaks is tittle tattle do I really want to know that William Hague, Cameron and Osborne believe they are the children of Thatcher just makes me worried that any sane person would want to be related to Mark and Carole. I am afraid that you have more faith in the media to decide what we should read than I have. At the end of the day for all its liberal tradition the Guardian is in the business of selling newspapers. A bit like the Telegraph and the MP's expenses the more outragous the better for sales. It really worries me that if wiki had been around 20 years ago publishing confidential information do you think we would have a relatively peaceful Northern Ireland or seen the end of apartheid in South Africa? Now, will the leaks assist or hinder the resolution of the situations in Korea or Iran? I'm all for the freedom of speech as long as the speaker shows responsibility, it is too late to bolt the stable door once the horse has bolted. Free speech might give the press a responsibility but that can't be said of the internet. The internet is only a medium of communication - you might as well say the telephone has a responsibility. That's what the Anonymous campaign is about - retaining the freedom of the internet and preventing it being controlled. Even those who disagree with what wikileaks does must surely recognise one service it has done - to identify the need for greater security of genuinely secret material. However, most, if not all, of this stuff isn't so high grade, otherwise it would never have been accessible to thousands of US personnel. You have a very qualified view of freedom of speech - it's OK if the speaker "shows responsibility". In other words, they have to filter it in some way and decide what can be known and what can't. Sounds a bit like censorship to me. I'm less cynical about our media than you. Of course they have to attract readers but I don't see why, in the Guardian's case, that is at odds with its liberal tradition. There's a lot of this material to report and, as international politics goes, it's very interesting. The media doesn't have a responsibility to make governments and institutions comfortable. Quite the opposite. Will the leaks hinder or assist in Korea and Iran? Well, do you not think that Iran through its own intelligence services would have been aware that Saudi was very concerned about its nuclear programme? And even if it hadn't known that Saudi would covertly encourage a US attack, might it not give Iran pause for thought to discover that? Similarly, for North Korea to discover (if it didn't already know) that China would be relaxed about Korean reunification under control of the South, so long as no US forces crossed into North Korea, would seriously clip the wings of the hawks in North Korea. Even they know they can't survive without Chinese support. The same is true in Burma, where China apparently won't sustain the military regime. Far from risking lives, there's a good argument to say these leaks could be a major contribution to peace. No-one can ever be sure and, of course, the US analysis could be wrong. But that's what this is really all about - the US is embarrassed to have some of its relatively confidential thoughts exposed. So it behaves like a bully - PayPal has admitted that it was acting under pressure from the US government. As the Financial Times leader said on Friday, " defending secrecy by subverting the rule of law is a very poor bargain." Shame on Obama for that. Meanwhile, the public has an opportunity to gain a better understanding of international politics, which an educated and informed democracy should welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2010 5:00:07 GMT 1
Good to see a little bit of direct action. Young people are criticised for not engaging in political issues etc. Lets not forget that it was the younger percentage of the electorate who rallied round the lib dems at the last election, lets not forget the % of student votes that make up Nick Cleggs majority. We also shouldn't forget the pledges that Lib Dem candidates made and signed with the NUS, how they sang from the roof tops about their higher tier education plans and heckled the other two parties. We also shouldn't forget the previous broken promises made by New Labour regarding tuition fees. The fact is people are p**sed off, and they aren't just p**sed off for themselves, a great number of students demonstrating will not be affected by these changes in tuition fees, but they are still following through with their convictions. When thousands of people protest, with the best intentions in the world, things often spiral out of control. i've seen some of the most rational people on b+a completely lose it in a crowd like atmosphere to the extent that if they were in the street, at church, in a restaurant, at the cinema or anywhere else they would most likely be arrested. We should be applauding the vast majority of these people for at least attempting to tackle the politicians head on, by making life uncomfortable for them and by being essentially unbritish. There is a reason that French workers have a better work/life balance, have better working practices and protectice, and no one tell me that their economy is worse off than ours. So a big I am also inclinde to extend a to Bob Crowe, irrespective of the rights and the wrongs of voluntary redundancies, safety concerns and no filling vacant posts, Boris like many other politicians needs to learn that he can't strike a deal with a group of people in an effort to get into power, get into power and then just **** them over and expect them to accept it. Yes Boris I can still see you on tv promising, when directly asked that under your watch there would be no station staff lost...
|
|
|
Post by leoshrew67 on Dec 11, 2010 10:13:57 GMT 1
The police should have called for backup, and requested the Meadow stewards Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! yet another person having a go at shrews stewards . Get over yourself, Incidently why pick on shrews stewards there are ninety -one other clubs that have match day stewards or do you not like authority ? Maybe you were impressed by the mob who smashed seven bells out of the royal car and endangering the innocent occupants (reguardless of their social standing )
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Dec 11, 2010 10:21:37 GMT 1
As someone said this thread is B&A at its best.
It was interesting the views of people actually in the midlle of the "kettling". I was on my way home listening to Radio 5 live at the time. The first part I heard was a live commentary and the shock in the voice of the presenter as he described one of the protesters trying to stop others(Yobs) committing violence, these yobs then turned on the person trying to stop them and violently beat them.
There was then a Senior Police officer almost apologising for the kettling and explaining everytime they tried to release people the violence increased which meant they had to put the kettling plan back into place. The Police were also saying the demonstration hadn't gone down the agreed route which increased the problems. It must have been really scary being in the middle of all this without knowing what the Police were trying to do or cope with.
The other thing I have found interesting that most of the debate has focused on Lib Dem broken promises. Very few people have picked up on the fact if the Tories or Labour had been in power both sides proposals would have been far worse. The mistakes the Lib Dems have made is not focsuing on this and saying whilst if we had been in power we would have scrapped fees the Country has got a better deal than the other two parties would have delivered on their own.
Another interesting point is Ed Milliband was interviewed after the vote and asked if Labour came to power would this law be changed and he didn't say "yes". This would support the view that this law is a better option than the Brown report which Labour would have followed.
As someone who voted for the Lib Dems at the last election I think they are doing an excellent job. They are getting some of their polices into law and also stopping the Tories going as far down the line with some of their plans as they might of done. That is what being a junior partner in a coalition is about.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 11, 2010 10:44:38 GMT 1
This thread has shown B&A at its best constructive discussion without any hint of the usual personal insults. I believe in free speech but along side that freedom comes a responsible. That responsibility affects the press and the internet. We all know on here that there are limits to our freedom of speech. Many of us are told confidences that we do not broadcast because of the consequences to the person who told us, or the effect disclosure would have. Surely on a much more important stage politicians and consulate staff must have the freedom to express their opinions in private without the risk of it appearing on the internet. Much of what Wiki leaks is tittle tattle do I really want to know that William Hague, Cameron and Osborne believe they are the children of Thatcher just makes me worried that any sane person would want to be related to Mark and Carole. I am afraid that you have more faith in the media to decide what we should read than I have. At the end of the day for all its liberal tradition the Guardian is in the business of selling newspapers. A bit like the Telegraph and the MP's expenses the more outragous the better for sales. It really worries me that if wiki had been around 20 years ago publishing confidential information do you think we would have a relatively peaceful Northern Ireland or seen the end of apartheid in South Africa? Now, will the leaks assist or hinder the resolution of the situations in Korea or Iran? I'm all for the freedom of speech as long as the speaker shows responsibility, it is too late to bolt the stable door once the horse has bolted. Free speech might give the press a responsibility but that can't be said of the internet. The internet is only a medium of communication - you might as well say the telephone has a responsibility. That's what the Anonymous campaign is about - retaining the freedom of the internet and preventing it being controlled. Even those who disagree with what wikileaks does must surely recognise one service it has done - to identify the need for greater security of genuinely secret material. However, most, if not all, of this stuff isn't so high grade, otherwise it would never have been accessible to thousands of US personnel. You have a very qualified view of freedom of speech - it's OK if the speaker "shows responsibility". In other words, they have to filter it in some way and decide what can be known and what can't. Sounds a bit like censorship to me. I'm less cynical about our media than you. Of course they have to attract readers but I don't see why, in the Guardian's case, that is at odds with its liberal tradition. There's a lot of this material to report and, as international politics goes, it's very interesting. The media doesn't have a responsibility to make governments and institutions comfortable. Quite the opposite. Will the leaks hinder or assist in Korea and Iran? Well, do you not think that Iran through its own intelligence services would have been aware that Saudi was very concerned about its nuclear programme? And even if it hadn't known that Saudi would covertly encourage a US attack, might it not give Iran pause for thought to discover that? Similarly, for North Korea to discover (if it didn't already know) that China would be relaxed about Korean reunification under control of the South, so long as no US forces crossed into North Korea, would seriously clip the wings of the hawks in North Korea. Even they know they can't survive without Chinese support. The same is true in Burma, where China apparently won't sustain the military regime. Far from risking lives, there's a good argument to say these leaks could be a major contribution to peace. No-one can ever be sure and, of course, the US analysis could be wrong. But that's what this is really all about - the US is embarrassed to have some of its relatively confidential thoughts exposed. So it behaves like a bully - PayPal has admitted that it was acting under pressure from the US government. As the Financial Times leader said on Friday, " defending secrecy by subverting the rule of law is a very poor bargain." Shame on Obama for that. Meanwhile, the public has an opportunity to gain a better understanding of international politics, which an educated and informed democracy should welcome. Forty years ago I would have described myself as a libertairian totally opposed to any form of censorship, gradually over the years I have started to realise that both some individuals and the media fail to live up to the responsibility necessary for a totally free society. So yes I do believe in censorship I suspect most of us do the difference is only in the level. Unfortunately the internet does need to be controlled, policed otherwise it will increase the pace towards the destruction of civilisation. Much of what the internet does is beneficial to society in general but the activities of groups like Anonymus demonstrate how in the long term a group much smaller than the "bankers" could bring the world to its knees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2010 10:53:16 GMT 1
The mistakes the Lib Dems have made is not focusing on this and saying whilst if we had been in power we would have scr@pped fees the Country has got a better deal than the other two parties would have delivered on their own.. i disagree Martin. I believe the mistake the libdems made was making a promise, amongst much pomp and ceremony, that they thought they would never be held accountable for. they never expected for one minute to be in power. gain a few seats maybe, clegg lead the biggest liberal parliamentary party for 30 years perhaps. but i dont think for a minute they really thought they would end up forming a government and so went about promising the earth to anyone who would listen. they saw the tory and ?Labour plans to increase or change tuition fees and saw a good way to grab a few votes, pledge no increases to tuition fees. grab the student vote. whats the worst that could happen? utter betrayal? being found out that despite all your fine words and brilliant pre election oratory, that your as shallow and deceptive as the others, if not worse? spark the worst rioting and civil disturbance in 30 years? will anyone ever trust the libdems again? and in the interest of balance, Labour broke promises and lost the trust of the people as well, but it took 13 years to do, not 7 months.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 11, 2010 10:54:56 GMT 1
One question on tuition fees that someone may be able to answer:
As I understand it the new tuition fees will come into force in 2012, but no student will pay until they have finished their course 2015, so who pays in the meantime, you and me the taxpayer?
If that is the case surely these proposals have no affect on the deficit reduction within 4 years and are therefore just a policy for reducing the number of students from poorer backgrounds who wish to study a non essential course such as English, History etc.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 11, 2010 10:59:30 GMT 1
Thousands of peaceful people attended with no intention of trouble and were treated like scum by the police, and got really angry about it.
Several hundred yobs went with the sole intention of causing trouble, and did so.
In doing so they forced the police to treat everyone like scum, to contain those who were causing problems.
Having been treated like scum some of the peaceful ones reacted to the police too.
1) The only people who made it not work were the anarchists / gangs who used it as an excuse for a mash up in the city centre.
2) It is just like a football match. We should be used to it.
3) It is not the fault of the vast majority of the the police or the vast majority of the students, but the thugs who hijacked the event.
And the sad thing is? As has been said before, thousands of people have protested about all sorts of things, but if you smash up the Treasury and attack the royal family you can be darn sure people will remember.
The problem with politics in this country is that the politicians have shown they do not listen to the people at the ballot box, they do not listen to the people in peaceful protest. So what is left? Either ceasing to participate in the political process (hence fairly low turnout in some elections) or going to do some " direct action.
The bottom line is people feel no-one will ever listen to them, or care enough about their vote for them to really have a voice. If they burn down the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square you can be darn sure people will sit up and take notice.
Nothing about what has happened surprises me, because Jamo predicted it 6 months ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2010 11:09:28 GMT 1
Good post Throb
I seem have a irrational dislike of students, but I admire them for actually bothering to take to the streets for something they believe in. Too many people in this country (and I do include myself) will spend hours moaning about all sorts of things but wont bother to do anything and almost just accept that we continue to get sh!t on by the political elite. And as has been said elsewhere, too often younger generations hear that they dont care about anything so it is good to see them proving people wrong.
However what has protesting about tuition fees got to do with attacking royals, defacing statues (Churchill, Mandela & Lincoln), swinging on flags on war memorials and burning Christmas trees? Lots of public sympathy will go out of the window when seeing actions like that. Yes some people will say its not fair to tag all students because of a minority of protestors but being football fans we should know that life isnt fair
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 11, 2010 11:14:32 GMT 1
The other thing to remember is that much of the great progress in our society have been achieved through direct action, which often spilled over into violence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdomen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_StreetViolence on the street of London and people storming the houses of parliament are key stepping stones into what we even know as a "Free society" And why did they do that? Often because the Eton / Oxbridge elite were trying to exclude them from access to opportunities they felt should be theirs. And what did the ruling classes of the day do? Paint them all as thugs and try to ignore the genuine plea in their actions. Nothing changes really.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 11, 2010 11:57:44 GMT 1
Sir Hugh Orde obviously listened to my posts on B&A a few weeks back...I'm sure most people will blinkerdly believe 'the police' really aren't impartial, but then few people will want to understand the difficulties of balancing their duty, with civil rights. A can of worms I think we've already done to death in this and several other posts. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/police-tuition-fees-protests-ordeHow very depressing.
|
|
|
Post by creature on Dec 11, 2010 13:51:02 GMT 1
Seen the link on the same page El P? Link------> witney As TBH has mentioned there's good and bad on both sides here. What concerns me is the political subterfuge. The Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to tear down the state. Cameron has said he is seeking to make us more like the USA, really we should be looking to Europe to see how the state should work. As for the Lib Dems, they made such a big fuss about tuition fees that they should have made it a red line policy in the negotiations. That they didn't shows their true colours. We're all in this together? The cost to my family of pension and student reforms looks like being in the region of £150K. The student protests may look like a walk in the park soon
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 11, 2010 14:54:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 11, 2010 18:25:05 GMT 1
Seen the link on the same page El P? Link------> witney Anti-Terrorist officer....or Schools Officer...!? Think someone got a bit too excited there, if you get me.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 11, 2010 18:37:13 GMT 1
If that was aimed at me Nick, please don't think I am missing the point of these " demos" simply because I do not agree with your thinking or you with mine. It wasn't as a matter of fact, the first four lines were directed at you. What did you think of the NUS alternative?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 11, 2010 20:00:48 GMT 1
What did you think of the NUS alternative? The NUS plans also called for £2.4 billion to be cut from the universities’ teaching budget over four years, a reduction of 48 per cent. What is the coalitions target when compared to this ? Further to that not being an economics guru I must confess I find the figures and policies confusing.
|
|