Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 164349, Apr 18, 2017.
And we all know what you are like on here too - so fair do's.
I'd like to take issue with the idea that we have elections so that individuals can express themselves through MPs.
This is demonstrably false. Occasionally an MP may bring up an individual's case in the House but this will usually be along party political lines. It's rare that an MP will go against the party for an individual.
I learned the hard way back in 1994 that the idea is false. The night that the 1994 Criminal Justice Bill was voted in I queued up outside of Parliament to lobby my MP (Tony Banks at the time). It is a democratic right to do so, this is why Parliament has a 'lobby'. There were around 2/300 of us queueing peaceably, chatting to the attending police, who i found actually agreed that this would be 'bad law'.
An hour passed, two hours, still the door was closed and we were denied access to our MPs.
Before the third hour was up a call went out over the police radio to disperse us, get rid of us. The policeman I'd spent a good time talking to cordially smacked my GF over the head right away. We were then tolchucked and chased across Westminster Bridge into South London. Mounted police and ground troops, all in full riot gear.
Luckily a bar owner saw what was happening and ushered around 50 of us in. He then locked the door to stop plod getting in and gave us all a free drink. We watched the 10 o clock news in the bar. The news told the World that we had attacked the police and had tried to force our way into parliament.....
Remember it's a democratic right to go to the lobby, meet your MP and ask him/her to represent your wishes in any vote on any statute/law.
Unless like the Clash said, you're dumb enough to actually try it.
The idea that we elect MPs and they express our wishes/views/concerns in Parliament is a falsehood, a State designed illusion. All part of the con that is representative democracy.
I'll remember this if I ever feel the need to go and speak to my MP.
'Don't take a 200+ strong mob with me'.
Thanks for the heads up.
Only ever used on one side of a march or whatever, that side isn't the side of people who can say they have at least 3 generation's of family born in the UK.
Nothing changed, its still the same today.
The authorities are so scared of Islam that they will protect them whatever it takes, if that means attacking/ arresting British Citizens they will.
Ah, the blessed Michael Howard.
What else is he known for...?
Going into an MP's surgery isn't the same as lobbying your MP in the Lobby Hall at Westminster prior to a vote. Google it...
And if you think standing peaceably in a queue makes you part of a mob you're probably onside with the 94 CJA and think it was a great piece of legislation.
Honestly, even the illusion of democracy is wasted on people.
The Wiki link that filly provided barely scratches the surface of what that bill did. Little gems like you can be classed as an unlawful assembly if you're in a 'group' of.....2. Yes, you and a mate walking down the street can now be constituted as an unlawful assembly.
And here's one for you DA, Blair was right behind it
This post is wrong on so many levels
It wasnt even worthy of responding to if that is the level of thoughts involved. It was a comment with nothing to support it
To be fair, if it were DA and Jack walking down the street, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.
And that sums up a lot doesn't it.
Any voice that goes against the system should be silenced?
I prefer free speech, and much as I disagree with your views and lack of thoughts, I would never want you silenced for free expression (as long as it is non threatening, violent, abusive etc).
Can you say the same? Obviously not
I'm afraid that the legislative bill completely passed me by at the time. I was to busy finding out where the next underground rave was going to be held so I could get off me nut on acceeed and mdma.
You've provided one technically correct power of the new law (two people walking down the street minding their own business being dragged down to the cells), but what other things did you have issue with?
And, is there any evidence that these 'new' powers have been abused in any way?
Really, amuse me and tell all.
Someone else that lives in the wilderness.
Try protesting against Islam in Luton while they are protesting and burning the Union Jack and displaying the ISIS flag, see who will be arrested, 100% it won't be them.
But you and yours are so blind to the truth its actually ******* scary.
What is the system?
If you were anywhere near a rave at the time it would have been impossible to have not known about the bill so I take it your first paragraph is very tongue in cheek
As for the second paragraph, of course not everything in the bill was 'bad law'. Some of it could very reasonably be said to be 'good law'. The Act criminalized male rape for example. But things like stop and search were stuck in there and I'd be surprised if you need examples of how that's been abused. Sections of the bill were directly aimed at protestors, it effectively criminalized direct action. You may not agree with hunt sabbing or road protests or things like the Standing Rock protest in the USA but the freedom to do these things are fundamental in a 'civilized', 'free' society. Remove this as the act did in Britain and you have stepped massively toward the authoritarian State. The act Criminalized travellers. You may not agree with people choosing to live in a bus or a bender but again, remove the ability to do this and you are stepping away from a 'free', 'civilized' society and toward an authoritarian State. These two aspects of the Act haven't necessarily been "abused", they've been enforced. The effect has been profound and further legislation has since been added on top. The effect being to clamp down on dissent, to restrict people's freedom to live however they see fit and to make criminals out of people who people who had previously not been classed as such. A knock on effect of this was to add more burden to the Police, to stretch their resources and yes make it harder for them to catch actual bad guys. I could go on of course but this is all a bit of a tangent from my initial point...that point being that representative democracy isn't about MPs expressing the will of their constituents.
In fact I'd be surprised if anyone does actually really think that MPs do that. Maybe the odd independent but in the main, no. They represent their parties, they are subject to whips, subject to the lobbying of business and capital (I bet no big business lobbyist has ever been tolchucked when attempting to exercise the right to lobby) and as was recently highlighted with Brexit and the whole 'Royal Prerogative' issue...actually representatives of the Crown/State.
No comment or questions on the above, I simply reproduced it for the amusement of seeing the words 'travellers' and 'civilised' in the same paragraph.
And there you have it in a nutshell. 'hunt sabbing'. Nothing to do with freedom, society or being civilised, it's socialism and the politics of envy, quite simply, 'tipping the toffs off their ponies'.
The only sort of travellers we get here commit crimes wherever they go. Trespass, theft , anti social behaviour, untaxed vehicles etc. Latest lot left a mountain of rubbish (to be cleared at council tax payers expense) Only moved about half a mile down the road to create yet another mountain of rubbish to spend my council tax on.
I see Corbyn's thought of a winning strategy.. He's offering us 4 more Bank Holidays per year. A winner for sure.
Separate names with a comma.