Turn on thread page Beta

Defending Balaclavas & Violent Protests watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Home Secretary, Theresa May:
    I am willing to consider powers which would ban known hooligans from rallies and marches and I will look into the powers the police already have to force the removal of face coverings. Home Secretary Theresa May
    Restricting people's rights when protesting just because of a small minority (yes, it is a small minority), is a very dangerous path to follow in a ‘democracy.’ Whilst people are losing their jobs and their standard of living is decreasing, there is also a huge luxurious royal wedding coming up, which shall inevitably cost the public more than it shall generate. (Let’s face it, a mug with Prince William’s face on it is hardly everyone’s cup of tea). At the end of the day, the 'working class' has felt no real benefits and the ‘middle class’ has lost out a lot during this coalition (and will continue to do so), so much that the gap between them and the rich has substantially increased and one can’t help but think of the pole tax riots during the Thatcher days.

    And yes I do find it hypocritical when I turn one page of the paper to see a man wearing a balaclava waving a flag being called a ‘thug’ for opposing his government and then turning it to the next page to see an identically dressed man in Libya opposing his government being hailed as a hero. Of course the UK’s government is not under the rule of one remarkably dressed dictator, but there is an undeniable sense of suppression felt by much of the people in this country- a deep psychological torment that we feel when we flick pages of the metro to see news of MPs now being able to claim more money, or banks paying out huge bonuses even when they do not achieve their own financial targets such as in the case of Bob Diamond at Barclays accepting ‘only’ £6,500,000 as his bonus when the board was prepared to offer him £9m-£10m in this economic climate.

    A former Labour MP (who wishes to remain anonymous) said,
    the government is expecting serious trouble over the coming months, the cuts will divide the country and in the end it will get very ugly…If the marches accomplish nothing and the government doesn’t budge then the only option left to the public is to participate in more aggressive forms of protest.
    There is a justification for civil disobedience. A user called hoinarylup on the Independent’s article ‘fears of crackdown on the right to protest in wake of anti-cuts’ quite nicely puts across a philosophical point about it, which I’ll summarise over here:

    Thomas Hobbes, asked the question, ‘why is it right to obey laws?’ The argument is because the government is something that will safeguard people’s rights to enjoy life and property because with no overall authority, life rapidly becomes intolerable. In other words, government and law are things which people create and agree to submit to for our own ends.
    Now if the reason for it being right to obey the government and the laws, is that the purpose for their existence is to safeguard our rights, then the logical corollary is that if they cease to safeguard our rights, we have a right to cease to obey them.
    I can guarantee you that if 250,000 people had decided to smash windows then the government’s response would not have been ‘we’re listening, but we’re not changing our minds’. It would have been more along the lines of ‘Jesus we better do something or we're in serious trouble’ as what happened in the case of the poll tax riots. I disagree with the idea that any protest should be a ‘family day out’ because a protest is not supposed something you can take your children to dance along to people playing drums as if they are at some sort of Brazilian carnival. If you honestly think that’s what it takes to swing a Conservative government, (pardon, I mean a coalition even though the Liberal Democrats seem to be standing for f*** all these days), then you have another thing coming. Of course I respect the people that peacefully protested, but how dare you dismiss those that would fight for what they believe in as thugs?

    The destruction of our welfare state and social contract is far more violent than a bit of red spray and the violence against the authorities is a genuine expression of frustration against the faceless government that continues to cheat the public for means of power. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
    When people fear their government, there's tyranny when the government fears the people there is Liberty.
    As the Leah Borromeo from the Guardian wrote in the article, ‘protestors can’t disown the violent minority’, ‘something out of the ordinary is happening – parts of Britain aren't bothering to be so polite anymore. Sometimes, to make your voice heard, you have to speak softly and carry a big stick.’ Indeed there are no ‘good’ protestors and ‘bad’ protestors because absolutely anyone who publicly declares their dissent to the governing body is a threat. Obviously the media would try to divide the people against them to be against each other. Cuts impact everybody; hence different people react differently to it. To condemn the ‘violent minority’, you are betraying those who are fighting for your cause. We’re all in this together…
    …Well apart from the likes of Diamond, Murdock etc etc… :rolleyes:

    Theresa May’s push to squeeze for ‘effective protesting’ (because apparently it makes sense for the government to make rules on how and who is allowed to protest against them) only serves to divide the country even more. A front line met policeman said,
    if you seriously think we're gonna risk physical injury to defend the bankers and rich twits who got us all into this, you've got another think coming. They should be making these tax-dodgers pay their tax, not expect us to take the flak.... The minute anyone goes off sick or injured here, you get a black mark... so it's just not worth it,
    further highlighting how divorced from reality our government is. The truth is that support for the coalition is very much swaying despite how much the rightist newspapers desperately try to hide that it isn’t so. It is ridiculous to impose huge cuts on the police and then expect them to ‘war’ with the people fighting against such cuts. Without the average bobby morally on their side, the government has no chance of making these protests ‘more effective’ now. Hey, at least Thatcher made sure that the police were on-side back in the 80s by increasing police numbers and increasing their wages.
    And as usual with British politics regarding human rights, the debate suddenly turned to Islam:

    Well well well??? What about the Burka then???
    Well of course Muslim women wearing the burka (and those under there who are not women) will still be able to keep their faces covered on religious grounds won’t they? ‘One law for them and another for us.'
    The government should learn that its attempts to make laws on what we are and are not allowed wearing to fulfil the purpose of alienating minorities they find ‘difficult’ is wrong. A law impacts the whole population and hence attempting to alienate one particular minority simply results in allinating other minorities as well, which could have dire consequences on the country’s social well being, (particularly when considering the amount of Islamaphobia that is already present in this country).

    You may agree with the actions of the current government, and you have your right to your own opinion. However, one day the government may do something that you might consider wrong. If that day comes will you make your voice heard? Ultimately, the march on March was just the beginning, not the end of a campaign and our protests will intensify. Thanks for your time.



    Edit: Could we please not go into the deatils about what the March protest was about? There are already numerous threads on this and the purpose of this thread is to act as a defence on the legitimacy of 'violent' protests as a whole. Thanks again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think nine times out of ten violent protests are not needed in democracies where people can participate via our political system to make a change, but I also understand that politicians are truly the scum of the earth and will say (and promise) anything to get into power. That can make many people feel isolated and cheated especially when (as you correctly point out) their jobs and livelihoods are at stake.

    To this end I am largely supportive of the student protests (that said I am not on the side of individual protesters e.g. reactionary Trotskyists or misguided anarchists). I do wish though that instead of smashing windows every few weeks the British left would actually unite so that they could offer real change through the ballot box...if the Coalition goes we'll have the social democratic Labour party back in power, and whilst they're kinder to public services let's not forget that they were the ones who instituted tuition fees in the first place...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sickening.
    Offline

    13
    I was going to offer up a long post about how there's more than one kind of 'violence' to the effect that the violence these neoliberals are doing to the lives of many by cutting services and opportunities for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in order to bail out the banking system, has to be entered into the balance sheet against a few broken windows or smashed up offices. But I don't think I can be bothered right now, my dinner hasn't agreed with me and I've got the runs

    Anyway, you get the idea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Sickening.
    Care to justify your reaction?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Care to justify your reaction?
    So you think violent protest and trashing private property ATM's by idiots with faces covered who are not trying to make any political point should be allowed?

    Sure civil disobedience sit ins and such can be defended as legitimate courses of action however attacking public and private property is not something that should be defended in any way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Civil disobedience is an important tradition and it should never be forgotten. That said, it's kind of inevitable that the government is going to try and crack down on it, it would lose its impact as 'disobedience' if the incumbent government decided it doesn't care if you smash up the windows.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Restricting people's rights when protesting just because of a small minority (yes, it is a small minority), is a very dangerous path to follow in a ‘democracy.’ Whilst people are losing their jobs and their standard of living is decreasing, there is also a huge luxurious royal wedding coming up, which shall inevitably cost the public more than it shall generate. (Let’s face it, a mug with Prince William’s face on it is hardly everyone’s cup of tea). At the end of the day, the 'working class' has felt no real benefits and the ‘middle class’ has lost out a lot during this coalition (and will continue to do so), so much that the gap between them and the rich has substantially increased and one can’t help but think of the pole tax riots during the Thatcher days.
    She said they were looking at banning KNOWN HOOLIGANS. If the cap doesn't fit don't wear it. If you are not a known hooligan then stop moaning.
    Job losses are a strawman and are irrelevant to the argument, so is the Royal Wedding. Which BTW is being payed for by the Royal Family. The only thing the public is paying for is extra security, which is not unreasonable since tons of heads of states and VIPs will be there.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    And yes I do find it hypocritical when I turn one page of the paper to see a man wearing a balaclava waving a flag being called a ‘thug’ for opposing his government and then turning it to the next page to see an identically dressed man in Libya opposing his government being hailed as a hero. Of course the UK’s government is not under the rule of one remarkably dressed dictator, but there is an undeniable sense of suppression felt by much of the people in this country- a deep psychological torment that we feel when we flick pages of the metro to see news of MPs now being able to claim more money, or banks paying out huge bonuses even when they do not achieve their own financial targets such as in the case of Bob Diamond at Barclays accepting ‘only’ £6,500,000 as his bonus when the board was prepared to offer him £9m-£10m in this economic climate.
    As you said we are not Libya and the situation is completely different. In Libya you wear a balaclava to protect against retaliation from deathsquads. In the UK you wear a balaclava to hide your identity whilst commiting a crime. If you have nothing to hide then don't try and hide.
    The board of Barclay's can pay Bob Diamond however much they want, it's their bank, it received no bailout from the government and it made a profit last year. If they didn't pay this bonus it's not like the money would have gone into the treasury or been redistributed to the poor. And ultimately I don't people realise people realise just how big of a job the man has, Bob Crow will no doubt say that Diamond is a fat cat who does nothing, but that is far from the truth and I doubt Crow would survive a day doing his job.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    There is a justification for civil disobedience. A user called hoinarylup on the Independent’s article ‘fears of crackdown on the right to protest in wake of anti-cuts’ quite nicely puts across a philosophical point about it, which I’ll summarise over here:

    Thomas Hobbes, asked the question, ‘why is it right to obey laws?’ The argument is because the government is something that will safeguard people’s rights to enjoy life and property because with no overall authority, life rapidly becomes intolerable. In other words, government and law are things which people create and agree to submit to for our own ends.

    I can guarantee you that if 250,000 people had decided to smash windows then the government’s response would not have been ‘we’re listening, but we’re not changing our minds’. It would have been more along the lines of ‘Jesus we better do something or we're in serious trouble’ as what happened in the case of the poll tax riots. I disagree with the idea that any protest should be a ‘family day out’ because a protest is not supposed something you can take your children to dance along to people playing drums as if they are at some sort of Brazilian carnival. If you honestly think that’s what it takes to swing a Conservative government, (pardon, I mean a coalition even though the Liberal Democrats seem to be standing for f*** all these days), then you have another thing coming. Of course I respect the people that peacefully protested, but how dare you dismiss those that would fight for what they believe in as thugs?
    That's not justification for civil disobedience, that's just some crap a Labour MP said. Ultimatey the Government was democratically elected in the General Election, they have a mandate to carry out cuts and that is what they will do. You lefties might be selfish enough to want to be excluded from the cuts but that does not give you the right to be a civil nuisance. The Government and the Police have a job to protect people and property, so if you go around smashing windows prepare for a backlash. The reason you are labelled thugs is because call for violence or revolution is totally over the top for the situation.
    A don't beleive for a second 250,000 trouble makers in London will change their minds, it will make the public even more against you and strengthen their resolve. We do not negotiate with terrorists.



    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    The destruction of our welfare state and social contract is far more violent than a bit of red spray and the violence against the authorities is a genuine expression of frustration against the faceless government that continues to cheat the public for means of power. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
    Thomas Jefferson can suck my testicles. He didn't have a £1 trillion pound national debt and a £160 bn budget defecit. If anyone could be asked Im sure loads of quotes can be found about how we shouldn't indebten our children for our own selfishness or something alongs those lines.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    As the Leah Borromeo from the Guardian wrote in the article, ‘protestors can’t disown the violent minority’, ‘something out of the ordinary is happening – parts of Britain aren't bothering to be so polite anymore. Sometimes, to make your voice heard, you have to speak softly and carry a big stick.’ Indeed there are no ‘good’ protestors and ‘bad’ protestors because absolutely anyone who publicly declares their dissent to the governing body is a threat. Obviously the media would try to divide the people against them to be against each other. Cuts impact everybody; hence different people react differently to it. To condemn the ‘violent minority’, you are betraying those who are fighting for your cause. We’re all in this together…
    …Well apart from the likes of Diamond, Murdock etc etc… :rolleyes:
    No one is saying you can't carry a big stick, just don't whine like a little ***** when the police also carry a big stick.
    Diamond and Murdoch pay their taxes and will face the same cut in public services as the rest of the country. Their taxes pay for these services even though they rarely even use them. So yes they are in this together. It might interest you to know that the richest 1% pay 25% of taxes, so again, yes they are in this with us.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Theresa May’s push to squeeze for ‘effective protesting’ (because apparently it makes sense for the government to make rules on how and who is allowed to protest against them) only serves to divide the country even more. A front line met policeman said,

    further highlighting how divorced from reality our government is. The truth is that support for the coalition is very much swaying despite how much the rightist newspapers desperately try to hide that it isn’t so. It is ridiculous to impose huge cuts on the police and then expect them to ‘war’ with the people fighting against such cuts. Without the average bobby morally on their side, the government has no chance of making these protests ‘more effective’ now. Hey, at least Thatcher made sure that the police were on-side back in the 80s by increasing police numbers and increasing their wages.
    Yes the it does make sense for the Government to make the rules, that is what Government is for. If you don't like those rules you de-elect them in the next General Election, don't ***** and moan about it in the street.
    As for the police man quote, I raise you one with Tony McGuirk, the chief officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.
    (From the Telegraph)
    He said there was an "epidemic of failure to deal with poor attendance" in the public sector.
    He said managers should be brave enough to root out lazy staff rather than sacrifice key infrastructure such as fire engines or stations.
    Mr McGuirk said the key was having "the muscle" to sack lazy workers.
    At his Merseyside branch, he said he had managed to become more efficient by cutting the number of firemen from 1,550 to 850 since 1991.
    At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    The government should learn that its attempts to make laws on what we are and are not allowed wearing to fulfil the purpose of alienating minorities they find ‘difficult’ is wrong. A law impacts the whole population and hence attempting to alienate one particular minority simply results in allinating other minorities as well, which could have dire consequences on the country’s social well being, (particularly when considering the amount of Islamaphobia that is already present in this country).
    I actually agree with you on this one, the government is too quick to cry Islamaphobia and this needs to be addressed. A Muslim think tank even said that Government pandering to Muslims was the worst thing it could do to promote community relations.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    You may agree with the actions of the current government, and you have your right to your own opinion. However, one day the government may do something that you might consider wrong. If that day comes will you make your voice heard? Ultimately, the march on March was just the beginning, not the end of a campaign and our protests will intensify. Thanks for your time.
    Oh trust me mate there are a lot of things the Government do that I disagree with, they shaft me almost daily with the inedpitute, stupidity and incompetance. I will get on with it however because I have testicles and a spine. If they piss me off enough I won't vote for them, however I do not think cuts, considering the context, is excuse for a big *****ing contest on the streets of London.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I was going to offer up a long post about how there's more than one kind of 'violence' to the effect that the violence these neoliberals are doing to the lives of many by cutting services and opportunities for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in order to bail out the banking system, has to be entered into the balance sheet against a few broken windows or smashed up offices. But I don't think I can be bothered right now, my dinner hasn't agreed with me and I've got the runs

    Anyway, you get the idea.
    Best anti-climax ever :lol:
    Edit: "Please rate some other members before rating this member again." FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    tl;dr

    But if they banned balaclavas then I'd just turn up in a burka.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The most logical course of action would be to remove balaclavas, and if necessary those who wear them.
    No good reason not to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So you think violent protest and trashing private property ATM's by idiots with faces covered who are not trying to make any political point should be allowed?
    How could you possibly know who is there to make a political point and who is there to not? Should 'violent' protestors be made to complete some sort of questionnaire before they are allowed to smash an ATM or not? :lolwut:

    In any case, however, people do not need to be intentionally trying to make political point in order to make one when they are in a group causing chaos. The chaos generated from a group's actions is a physical expression of rage against the state, which in itself exhibits a political point as such an extent of chaos would not have happened unless there was a political incentive to begin with.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    How could one know who is there to make a political point and who is there to not? Should 'violent' protestors be made to complete some sort of questionnaire before they are allowed to smah an ATM or not? :lolwut:

    In any case, however, people do not need to be intentionally trying to make political point in order to make one when they are in a group causing chaos. The chaos generated from a group's actions is a physical expression of rage against the state, which in itself exhibits a political point as such an extent of chaos would not have happened unless there was a political incentive to begin with.
    What I was getting at is those who were attacking ATM's and such were not making any point its pretty clear they just went up there to cause some damage.

    People like these have been seen at every riot in London in the last 10 years. Be it the Student protests the most recent one or the G20 protests.

    To try and defend them is frankly stupid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    She said they were looking at banning KNOWN HOOLIGANS. If the cap doesn't fit don't wear it.
    I’m a believer in the freedom of speech in that I believe that everyone has a right to have their voice heard.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    If you are not a known hooligan then stop moaning.
    I forgot that you’re only allowed to defend people of your 'own kind.' :rolleyes:

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Job losses are a strawman and are irrelevant to the argument, so is the Royal Wedding. Which BTW is being payed for by the Royal Family. The only thing the public is paying for is extra security, which is not unreasonable since tons of heads of states and VIPs will be there.
    I do not see how job losses could possibly be irrelevant in a protest in which so many people were protesting against the amount of job losses that has occured and will be made due to cuts. The royal wedding has been estimated to cost the economy £5 billion.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    As you said we are not Libya and the situation is completely different. In Libya you wear a balaclava to protect against retaliation from deathsquads. In the UK you wear a balaclava to hide your identity whilst commiting a crime. If you have nothing to hide then don't try and hide.
    I resent that argument. Considering the amount of domestic abuse that occurs in kitchens, why don’t we install cameras in everybody’s kitchen? If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t have a problem with it.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The board of Barclay's can pay Bob Diamond however much they want, it's their bank, it received no bailout from the government and it made a profit last year. If they didn't pay this bonus it's not like the money would have gone into the treasury or been redistributed to the poor. And ultimately I don't people realise people realise just how big of a job the man has, Bob Crow will no doubt say that Diamond is a fat cat who does nothing, but that is far from the truth and I doubt Crow would survive a day doing his job.
    I’m sure Diamond wouldn’t survive one day working as an Indonesian sulphur minor, what’s your point? That he deserves every penny he gets? :erm:
    And although Barclays did not directly receive a bail out from the government, they did benefit from the injection of liquidity undertaken by the Bank of England and a new structure put in place in March 2008, not to mention the guarantees from government for funding undertaken by banks.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's not justification for civil disobedience, that's just some crap a Labour MP said.
    What Thomas Hobbes said was the justification in terms of a moral context.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Ultimatey the Government was democratically elected in the General Election, they have a mandate to carry out cuts and that is what they will do.
    Funny thing is, did we get what we voted for?



    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You lefties might be selfish enough to want to be excluded from the cuts but that does not give you the right to be a civil nuisance. The Government and the Police have a job to protect people and property, so if you go around smashing windows prepare for a backlash. The reason you are labelled thugs is because call for violence or revolution is totally over the top for the situation. A don't beleive for a second 250,000 trouble makers in London will change their minds, it will make the public even more against you and strengthen their resolve. We do not negotiate with terrorists.
    :sleep: Read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Ta...f_the_Poll_Tax

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Thomas Jefferson can suck my testicles. He didn't have a £1 trillion pound national debt and a £160 bn budget defecit. If anyone could be asked Im sure loads of quotes can be found about how we shouldn't indebten our children for our own selfishness or something alongs those lines. No one is saying you can't carry a big stick, just don't whine like a little ***** when the police also carry a big stick.
    Diamond and Murdoch pay their taxes and will face the same cut in public services as the rest of the country. Their taxes pay for these services even though they rarely even use them. So yes they are in this together. It might interest you to know that the richest 1% pay 25% of taxes, so again, yes they are in this with us.
    This thread is here to defend the means in which people expressed their opinions rather than what their opinions were.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yes the it does make sense for the Government to make the rules, that is what Government is for. If you don't like those rules you de-elect them in the next General Election, don't ***** and moan about it in the street.
    I forgot that in a democracy in this country, one has to wait till the 7th May 2015 to voice their concerns. :lolwut:

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    As for the police man quote, I raise you one with Tony McGuirk, the chief officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.
    (From the Telegraph)
    He said there was an "epidemic of failure to deal with poor attendance" in the public sector.
    He said managers should be brave enough to root out lazy staff rather than sacrifice key infrastructure such as fire engines or stations.
    Mr McGuirk said the key was having "the muscle" to sack lazy workers.
    At his Merseyside branch, he said he had managed to become more efficient by cutting the number of firemen from 1,550 to 850 since 1991.
    At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts.
    Okay, you’re for the reduction of police. Clearly you’re not living in some sh*t hole estate in Hackney. :top:

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Oh trust me mate there are a lot of things the Government do that I disagree with, they shaft me almost daily with the inedpitute, stupidity and incompetance. I will get on with it however because I have testicles and a spine. If they piss me off enough I won't vote for them, however I do not think cuts, considering the context, is excuse for a big *****ing contest on the streets of London.
    If you don’t think it’s something worth protesting for, then that is your political opinion and you have a right to it. I also have the right to my opinion and mine is that if you simply ‘get on with it’, i.e. do not stand up for what you believe in then you are a right complacent pu*sy that will (and deserves to be) walked over.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I think nine times out of ten violent protests are not needed in democracies where people can participate via our political system to make a change, but I also understand that politicians are truly the scum of the earth and will say (and promise) anything to get into power. That can make many people feel isolated and cheated especially when (as you correctly point out) their jobs and livelihoods are at stake.

    To this end I am largely supportive of the student protests (that said I am not on the side of individual protesters e.g. reactionary Trotskyists or misguided anarchists). I do wish though that instead of smashing windows every few weeks the British left would actually unite so that they could offer real change through the ballot box...if the Coalition goes we'll have the social democratic Labour party back in power, and whilst they're kinder to public services let's not forget that they were the ones who instituted tuition fees in the first place...
    Well said.

    And on the subject of balaclavas - bar a few violent individuals, isn't the point to cover your face so you're not targeted by police who may photograph you and later falsely claim you committed a crime etc?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Well said.

    And on the subject of balaclavas - bar a few violent individuals, isn't the point to cover your face so you're not targeted by police who may photograph you and later falsely claim you committed a crime etc?
    A lot of people cover their faces at protests because there are a lot of photographers there. Not everyone wants their employers seeing them carrying a placard, especially if their employer politically disagrees with them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    A lot of people cover their faces at protests because there are a lot of photographers there. Not everyone wants their employers seeing them carrying a placard, especially if their employer politically disagrees with them.
    This too, esp for healthcare workers, teachers, med students etc
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I’m a believer in the freedom of speech in that I believe that everyone has a right to have their voice heard.



    I forgot that you’re only allowed to defend people of your 'own kind.' :rolleyes:



    I do not see how job losses could possibly be irrelevant in a protest in which so many people were protesting against the amount of job losses that has occured and will be made due to cuts. The royal wedding has been estimated to cost the economy £5 billion.



    I resent that argument. Considering the amount of domestic abuse that occurs in kitchens, why don’t we install cameras in everybody’s kitchen? If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t have a problem with it.



    I’m sure Diamond wouldn’t survive one day working as an Indonesian sulphur minor, what’s your point? That he deserves every penny he gets? :erm:
    And although Barclays did not directly receive a bail out from the government, they did benefit from the injection of liquidity undertaken by the Bank of England and a new structure put in place in March 2008, not to mention the guarantees from government for funding undertaken by banks.



    What Thomas Hobbes said was the justification in terms of a moral context.



    Funny thing is, did we get what we voted for?





    :sleep: Read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Ta...f_the_Poll_Tax



    This thread is here to defend the means in which people expressed their opinions rather than what their opinions were.



    I forgot that in a democracy in this country, one has to wait till the 7th May 2015 to voice their concerns. :lolwut:



    Okay, you’re for the reduction of police. Clearly you’re not living in some sh*t hole estate in Hackney. :top:



    If you don’t think it’s something worth protesting for, then that is your political opinion and you have a right to it. I also have the right to my opinion and mine is that if you simply ‘get on with it’, i.e. do not stand up for what you believe in then you are a right complacent pu*sy that will (and deserves to be) walked over.
    Remind me to rep you.

    Speaking of burqas, why don't protesters wear burqas? Effective & statement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I’m a believer in the freedom of speech in that I believe that everyone has a right to have their voice heard.
    No one is taking away your right to free speech, we just don't want you smashing up half of London as you speak.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I forgot that you’re only allowed to defend people of your 'own kind.' :rolleyes:
    I don't beleive you should defend hooligans and anti-social louts.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I do not see how job losses could possibly be irrelevant in a protest in which so many people were protesting against the amount of job losses that has occured and will be made due to cuts.
    Job losses are irrelevant to an argument about the right to free speech, protests and supposed totalitarianism by the Government yes.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    The royal wedding has been estimated to cost the economy £5 billion.
    WHAT?!?!?!?!?!:confused::confused::confused:
    Did you just make that up? You did didn't you. You just pulled a made up figure out of your ass. Security for the wedding, the cost to the taxpayer is £30 million.
    £5 billion...HA, honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I resent that argument. Considering the amount of domestic abuse that occurs in kitchens, why don’t we install cameras in everybody’s kitchen? If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t have a problem with it.
    No, because a kitchen is personal property. The streets of London are public.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I’m sure Diamond wouldn’t survive one day working as an Indonesian sulphur minor, what’s your point? That he deserves every penny he gets? :erm:
    And although Barclays did not directly receive a bail out from the government, they did benefit from the injection of liquidity undertaken by the Bank of England and a new structure put in place in March 2008, not to mention the guarantees from government for funding undertaken by banks.
    I actually think he could survive. He would ***** and moan because he has probably never done manual labour before, but he would survive. My point is that people hate him simply because he gets a fat wage packet, and considering the gianormous entity that Barclays is and the big ass profits he is bringing in for the shareholders, I think he definately deserves a big cheque at the end of the month.
    The liquidity injection and other spending by the BoE was to shore up the entire economy. Everyone in theory benefited from it. That does not mean Barclays should bend to the will of the 'people'.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    What Thomas Hobbes said was the justification in terms of a moral context.
    I wasn't talking about Thomas Hobbes, I was talking about the supposed Labour MP who conveniently wished to remain anonymous.
    As for Thomas Hobbes, he is was philosopher, that's what they do: philosophise. The only people who ask 'Why is it right to obey laws?' are the people who want to break them.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Funny thing is, did we get what we voted for?

    Nice, bring Nick Clegg into the picture. Funny thing is 6.8 million people did vote Lib Dem.
    I had to put up with 13 years of Labour but I didn't throw a hissy fit and cry like a little girl. I was going to, honestly, but then I remembered that I didn't have a vagina.

    So what about Poll Tax? That is completely different. The Government NEED to cut, that is what they were elected for. They can not turn back from this without looking like complete tools.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    This thread is here to defend the means in which people expressed their opinions rather than what their opinions were.
    Yes and the means are what is in question. Should people be allowed to rampage through the streets of London and smash up private property? Er, No.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    I forgot that in a democracy in this country, one has to wait till the 7th May 2015 to voice their concerns. :lolwut:
    Er yes you do. Democracy in the UK means rule by plurality. The Conservatives won the General Election now we rule. I put up with 13 years of Labour so stop crying just because Labour aren't in power.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Okay, you’re for the reduction of police. Clearly you’re not living in some sh*t hole estate in Hackney. :top:
    Did you read what he said? He cut numbers and still improved his departments service. Get rid of the lazy and bone idle, get rid of unnecessary and backroom staff, and cuts will not be as severe. And for the record I grew up in Walthamstow, which wasn't exactly the land of sunshine and roses.


    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    If you don’t think it’s something worth protesting for, then that is your political opinion and you have a right to it. I also have the right to my opinion and mine is that if you simply ‘get on with it’, i.e. do not stand up for what you believe in then you are a right complacent pu*sy that will (and deserves to be) walked over.
    Yeah you have the right to your opinion, I never said you didn't, in fact I expressly said that you did. What you don't have the right to do though is moan and ***** like a self-entitled prick because you aren't getting what you want. We are a country of 61 million people. Not everyone is going to get what they want all the time, but if we took to the streets everytime we didn't and threw a riot, nothing would ever get done, the country would implode then nobody would have anything. I stand up for what I believe in at the ballot box.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No one is taking away your right to free speech, we just don't want you smashing up half of London as you speak.
    This was a reference to banning 'hooligans' from protestings.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I don't beleive you should defend hooligans and anti-social louts.
    I can defend whoever the **** I want.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Job losses are irrelevant to an argument about the right to free speech, protests and supposed totalitarianism by the Government yes.
    It highlights why so many people are angry to begin with.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    WHAT?!?!?!?!?!:confused::confused::confused:
    Did you just make that up? You did didn't you. You just pulled a made up figure out of your ass. Security for the wedding, the cost to the taxpayer is £30 million.
    £5 billion...HA, honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...onomy-5bn.html

    Even so, £30,000,000. Are you ****ing joking me? Do you think that's cheap?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No, because a kitchen is personal property. The streets of London are public.
    Fine. How about having a camera man follow you when you walk outside on the streets everyday? People have the right for privacy and your belief that only people who are up to no good cover their faces during protests just highlights how naive you are about the matter. A lot of people cover their faces at protests because there are a lot of photographers there. For instance, not everyone wants their employers seeing them carrying a placard, especially if their employer politically disagrees with them.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I actually think he could survive. He would ***** and moan because he has probably never done manual labour before, but he would survive. My point is that people hate him simply because he gets a fat wage packet, and considering the gianormous entity that Barclays is and the big ass profits he is bringing in for the shareholders, I think he definately deserves a big cheque at the end of the month.
    The liquidity injection and other spending by the BoE was to shore up the entire economy. Everyone in theory benefited from it. That does not mean Barclays should bend to the will of the 'people'.
    What about the fact that the top five bankers at RBS earn more than £20,000,000 a year? Did we not rescue that bank with £20 billion of public money? Are large bonuses still not given out?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I wasn't talking about Thomas Hobbes, I was talking about the supposed Labour MP who conveniently wished to remain anonymous.
    As for Thomas Hobbes, he is was philosopher, that's what they do: philosophise. The only people who ask 'Why is it right to obey laws?' are the people who want to break them.
    **** my life, aren't you a sheep?

    The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules. It’s people who follow orders that drop bombs and massacre villages
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Nice, bring Nick Clegg into the picture. Funny thing is 6.8 million people did vote Lib Dem.
    Nick Clegg has become a classic example of how backstabbing the politicians can be.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I had to put up with 13 years of Labour but I didn't throw a hissy fit and cry like a little girl. I was going to, honestly, but then I remembered that I didn't have a vagina.
    I'm sorry, can't you form a logical argument without making a references to genitals?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    So what about Poll Tax? That is completely different. The Government NEED to cut, that is what they were elected for. They can not turn back from this without looking like complete tools.
    Cleggy would know all about that wouldn't he?

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yes and the means are what is in question. Should people be allowed to rampage through the streets of London and smash up private property? Er, No.
    Just watch us do so.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Er yes you do. Democracy in the UK means rule by plurality. The Conservatives won the General Election now we rule. I put up with 13 years of Labour so stop crying just because Labour aren't in power.
    It seems to me that you are just against people protesting in general and seem to forget that protest events increase the visibility of a cause.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Did you read what he said? He cut numbers and still improved his departments service. Get rid of the lazy and bone idle, get rid of unnecessary and backroom staff, and cuts will not be as severe. And for the record I grew up in Walthamstow, which wasn't exactly the land of sunshine and roses.
    I did read what he wrote.
    At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts
    .

    Are we increasing the amount of money we are putting in crime prevention proejects? Erm no. Aren't we closing down all those youth centres? We're just cutting £45m you fish.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah you have the right to your opinion, I never said you didn't, in fact I expressly said that you did. What you don't have the right to do though is moan and ***** like a self-entitled prick because you aren't getting what you want. We are a country of 61 million people. Not everyone is going to get what they want all the time, but if we took to the streets everytime we didn't and threw a riot, nothing would ever get done, the country would implode then nobody would have anything. I stand up for what I believe in at the ballot box.
    All for what? To vote for backstabbing scum politicians that can just break their promises whenever they want to? Many of us think that standing up for what you believe in takes more than putting a cross on a piece of paper once every few years.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2011

1,651

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.