democracy and the law

[flint67 2]

we can continue here , rather than hijack the marchers thread. I was mistaken in my interpretation of civil disobedience , the dictionary says "the refusal to comply with certain laws as a peaceful form of political protest" with the emphasis on peaceful my reference to terrorism was way off mark , however i still disagree with your suggestion that its the only way to change something. . With regard to the law the only way to change it is through political process ,and civil disobedience wont change anything. Like you , i choose to ignore a certain law but i dont class it as civil disobedience as im not doing it as a form of protest. Democracy simply means we have democratically elected representatives , it doesnt mean we get to vote on every act of parliament , and it doesnt mean we get to criticise the democratic SYSTEM just because the govt passes a law we disagree with. We only have to watch the world news to see some of the horrific alternatives to our democracy ,to claim that we dont live in a democracy is ungrateful and insulting to the people genuinely suffering at the hands of dictatorships. . .so lets keep things in perspective ,they stopped us hunting ,they didnt take our freedom

[Swampy 147]

we can continue here , rather than hijack the marchers thread. I was mistaken in my interpretation of civil disobedience , the dictionary says "the refusal to comply with certain laws as a peaceful form of political protest" with the emphasis on peaceful my reference to terrorism was way off mark , however i still disagree with your suggestion that its the only way to change something. . With regard to the law the only way to change it is through political process ,and civil disobedience wont change anything. Like you , i choose to ignore a certain law but i dont class it as civil disobedience as im not doing it as a form of protest. Democracy simply means we have democratically elected representatives , it doesnt mean we get to vote on every act of parliament , and it doesnt mean we get to criticise the democratic SYSTEM just because the govt passes a law we disagree with. We only have to watch the world news to see some of the horrific alternatives to our democracy ,to claim that we dont live in a democracy is ungrateful and insulting to the people genuinely suffering at the hands of dictatorships. . .so lets keep things in perspective ,they stopped us hunting ,they didnt take our freedom

 

No offence. But no. We do not live in a democracy anymore. That I'm afraid is the illusion that has been created by successive gov't for over 60 yrs

We are the subject of a global plan to have one oligarchy.

I agree that on the face of it we seem better off than many other states. However in some respects their situation could be better.

We are slowly having our freedoms eroded away with misinformation and insidious laws that have no place in a real democracy.

Our manufacturing industry is no longer required by europe we have been given the role of europes call centre. our countryside and all that goes with it is being taken away because our farming industry is not required by europe...the fishing industry etc etc etc just read the common agricultural policy. We're feked mate.

Enjoy the relative freedom we still have mate. It won't be there for long. If we don't recognise this fact. There is no way back other than war. And no one really wants that......I hope.

 

 

rgds

 

 

Swampy

 

subversivening

[RicW 67]

 

 

 

 

I'm coming on to this one a bit late cos I've been away for a few days. Swampy, you seem to be claiming that civil disobedience never changed anything. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you . . . but.

 

When the anti poll tax march kicked off in Trafalgar Square in 1990 and we went down and dirty with the Met we got rid of Mad Maggy The Handbag. Even her private advisers have admitted that the weight of public opposition meant that she had to go. If we make our position clear the politicos have to listen cos if they don't they lose votes. I don't advocate violence but if it works . . .

 

Ric

[flint67 2]

 

 

 

 

I'm coming on to this one a bit late cos I've been away for a few days. Swampy, you seem to be claiming that civil disobedience never changed anything. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you . . . but.

 

When the anti poll tax march kicked off in Trafalgar Square in 1990 and we went down and dirty with the Met we got rid of Mad Maggy The Handbag. Even her private advisers have admitted that the weight of public opposition meant that she had to go. If we make our position clear the politicos have to listen cos if they don't they lose votes. I don't advocate violence but if it works . . .

 

Ric

No mate its me that says it doesnt change anything , i remember that pmq s sooo well , what a day , it wasnt the poll tax it was sir geoffrey howe , "the sheep that turned" . .remember now? What a speech , look it up . Anyway the c a march was bigger and achieved zero and an onslaught of criminal damage would have made it worse not better, if any govt caved to rioters , where would that put them , at the mercy of thugs, never happen.

[higgins 75]

we can continue here , rather than hijack the marchers thread. I was mistaken in my interpretation of civil disobedience , the dictionary says "the refusal to comply with certain laws as a peaceful form of political protest" with the emphasis on peaceful my reference to terrorism was way off mark , however i still disagree with your suggestion that its the only way to change something. . With regard to the law the only way to change it is through political process ,and civil disobedience wont change anything. Like you , i choose to ignore a certain law but i dont class it as civil disobedience as im not doing it as a form of protest. Democracy simply means we have democratically elected representatives , it doesnt mean we get to vote on every act of parliament , and it doesnt mean we get to criticise the democratic SYSTEM just because the govt passes a law we disagree with. We only have to watch the world news to see some of the horrific alternatives to our democracy ,to claim that we dont live in a democracy is ungrateful and insulting to the people genuinely suffering at the hands of dictatorships. . .so lets keep things in perspective ,

'they stopped us hunting ,they didnt take our freedom'..... IF you enjoy or play football,and the government stops you playing football,thay have effectivively taken away your freedom to play football.......our game is fieldsports and effectively you have less freedom to enjoy or participate in your chosen sport since the 'ban' has restricted or removed most of your rights to participate in fieldsports,so they have taken your freedom,just my thoughts for the moment,

Higgins.

 

'

[higgins 75]

 

 

 

 

I'm coming on to this one a bit late cos I've been away for a few days. Swampy, you seem to be claiming that civil disobedience never changed anything. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you . . . but.

 

When the anti poll tax march kicked off in Trafalgar Square in 1990 and we went down and dirty with the Met we got rid of Mad Maggy The Handbag. Even her private advisers have admitted that the weight of public opposition meant that she had to go. If we make our position clear the politicos have to listen cos if they don't they lose votes. I don't advocate violence but if it works . . .

 

Ric

No mate its me that says it doesnt change anything , i remember that pmq s sooo well , what a day , it wasnt the poll tax it was sir geoffrey howe , "the sheep that turned" . .remember now? What a speech , look it up . Anyway the c a march was bigger and achieved zero and an onslaught of criminal damage would have made it worse not better, if any govt caved to rioters , where would that put them , at the mercy of thugs, never happen.

flint67 i remember that,and what you have just highlighted is the fact that these people in government are just that,'people' no more powerful than the population and they are susceptible to change or 'back down'when the pressure gets to them,poll tax was Maggie's 'back down' it got changed to 'council tax',no government is unchangeable or fixed,this has just been proved by the previous statemnets,

Higgins.

[flint67 2]

well lads , howes resignation speech was about europe , not the poll tax. . . "Surrendered sovereignty , she says we have already surrendered enough , churchill was right ,it is pooled sovereignty" not the poll tax or the riot. those who have posted we dont live in a democracy, i would like to know what it is you think a democracy is ? They didnt take our freedom , just our freedom to hunt , big big difference. There are many countries in the world where there is no democracy, where if you publicly speak out against the government you will lose your freedom or even your life.so maybe we could stop with the drama. I am opposed to the hunting act but none the less, it was an act of parliament drafted by democratically elected representatives , you dont get to criticise the system of government just because you dont like the act , unless you have a better idea , criticise the government itself but this whole ,"fck the ban we dont live in a democracy any more , coz i cant do what i want" is mind boggling to me. Take a look at the world news and think before you speak.

[Dosser 52]

We in Britain have enjoyed Democracy, freedom, civil rights because they have been fought for and won by our ancestors, however, this freedom can never be taken for granted and successive generations have become complacent,

distracted and foolish. Our democracy has been under attack for 50 years or so, through subversion and fabian tactics.Our rights have been reduced to privilages and in many cases revoked completely bit by bit, slowly slowly. This is becoming more and more evident as the agenda is accelerated.

For fer too long people have been content to think "the countries problems aint my problems" Well it looks as though, a rude awakening is coming.

flint67, no disrespect, but you would do well to weigh what you see on the mainstream media's news, against

reports from other, less biased sources.

Here is, possibly, the last good man in power's words on it. And he paid with his life.

 

Edited December 18, 2009 by Dosser

[flint67 2]

dosser , i cant stream video to my phone so youtube link no good to me , but would be interested to know who the "last good man in power" was , my knowledge of world leaders is not enough that i could make such a statement. Also , where are the less biased news reports that can fill me in on the real situations in zimbabwe , burma , north korea , china et al . . .as i have clearly been duped by the conspiracy of mainstream media , possibly part of wolfie smiths worldwide conspiracy (see above!)

[Dosser 52]

The best i could find for a transcript of the link, bear in mind i said "possibly" the last good man.

You can find independant free thinking all over tinternet.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press" before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.

 

 

 

The website where it was located and downloaded the entire speech 13MB and was also able to obtain and print the text transcript is at http://www.jfklibrary.org. (Thanks Tom)!

 

The file is only about 5 min long. Below is copied from the transcript:

 

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

 

In my efforts to provide you a transcript of the attached file, I have discovered that the above paragraph is word for word the first 1:26.

 

The next 3 paragraphs and the first sentence of the next paragraph were omitted. I do not know why since I do not know what the editor of the original speech had in his or her mind. The file continues .....

 

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

 

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

 

End at 2:28 - This is a solid piece in the transcript but ends mid paragraph.

 

Several more paragraphs of the transcript are skipped and the file continues.......

 

"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

 

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

 

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

 

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...

 

This part ends at 4:52. mid sentence. It left out "--and we intend to do it." It also skips a paragraph and then the file continues ...

 

"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

[littletimmy 71]

Nobody living in a society experiences complete freedom. The only way to be free is to be solitary. I.e not have to answer to anyone or depend on anyone. Law is something that made up which you choose to submit to or be oblivious to. As far as hunting and fredom goes, if you still hunt you have lost no freedom. I hunt becuase I want to, i choose to participate in marches, protests, letters to MPs because I want to be a member of socioty. If i don't believe in a law i choice not to follow it, simple. Your free until you CHOOSE not to be.

 

Might ff typed out a load of shite there but i know what i mean

[AL BUNDY 45]

maggie thatcher had more balls than this goverment put together . long live maggie.

[twobob 1,497]

maggie thatcher had more balls than this goverment put together . long live maggie.

[

 

/quote]Maggie thatcher was/is a cxxt and if she had balls i would have willingly nailed them to a cross for her

Edited December 19, 2009 by twobob

[flint67 2]

well , leaving "honest jack" and mrs t to one side for the minute . .i am still interested to hear from the people who claim we do not live ind a democracy . .in your view, what is a democracy? What makes a genuine democratic system of government , not some howl at the moon idealistic utopian dream . Do you actually think that we can run a country by having successive votes on every single act of parliament , every piece of legislation should be set before the country for their yea or nay? Apart from the fact that this would be extremely impractical and hugely expensive , take a look around you at your fellow citizens , voter turnout is poor unless its for xfactor or im a celeb . . .and do you want the average man in the street ,whose opinions are so frequently formed by reading a banner headline in the sun, making decisions on taxation, interest rates or the deficit ,let alone more complicated affairs of foreign policy? Coz i dont. Its easy to make throwaway comments " i could do a better job than this lot" or "i cant do what i want so this isnt a democracy anymore" or even "the hunting act wasnt the will of the people" really? 60million people ,who can say the majority were opposed to the act.

[mushroom 12,883]

We in this country have the RIGHT to peaceful protest and democratically elect the people who govern us. Agreed???

 

So why....

 

Do we have to submit a plan for a march?

 

After the truckers fuel protest did the government ban go slows on Britain’s roads?

 

Are we governed in statutes and acts made up by quangos whom we did not elect but were positioned so because of their sympathies or allegiances?

 

I'll answer all the questions for you

 

The plans for marches and go slows being banned are all to do with embarrassment!!! Embarrassment for the government that ensued after they were shown up by thousands of people turning up in London unannounced to say that the government had it wrong. "We can’t have this happening again Gordon what shall we do?" " Och oor Tony ban them under the guise of prevention of terrorism" this is their answer BAN IT, control them, give them ID cards, take their DNA, interfere with their way of life

 

 

 

Was the lady reading out the names of war heroes quietly a terrorist? She was arrested as such

 

What about the elderly lifelong Labour supporter who heckled Tony at a conference and was hand balled out roughly and detained under the prevention of terrorism act,

 

 

 

And you’re seriously suggesting that everything is peachy and democratic