Policing the fuel tax protest 'terrorists' ...
Discussion
turbobloke said:Which BLiar? The "Teflon Tony" or the "Cozening Commissioner" variety? - Streaky
... Seeing BLiar parading around London during the election in a resprayed plodmobile ...
["Cozen" - deceive, win over, induce to do something by artful coaxing, wheedling, shrewd trickery (from obsure Italian cozzonare - a horse trader)]
LongQ said:
Indeed not and the whole situation was summed up years ago by the German Pastor (can't remember his name right now) in relation to the acceptance of the actions of Hitler's mob.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
MilnerR said:
Indeed not and the whole situation was summed up years ago by the German Pastor (can't remember his name right now) in relation to the acceptance of the actions of Hitler's mob.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
That's the one - thanks. I should have looked it up really, it's an easy google and I could remember his first name but not quite recall the family name (is that the PC way to say things these days?)
turbobloke said:
...these days?.....Bliar colon?
Where've ya been?
Definitely not up BLiar's ass, so obviously out of touch
Big fat F'er said:
And if one more d*ckh*ad says Blair is Left Wing!!!!
If he's not left wing what is he, left drum stick
So BLiar mumbles about supporting the free market philosophy but then increases the size of the government and its control freak tendencies (leftist), supports the pinko-green EU in its drive to drown business in red tape (leftist), supports lame cause nutters like anti-globalisation d*ckh*ads and doleys with more and more taxpayers' money creating dependency on the state (leftist), likes state controlled 'collective' transport and hates the independent mobility and class/wealth indicator known as 'the car'(leftist), and generally pursues a socialist agenda behind a smokescreen of centrist spin.
BLiar's ministers defend the right to intrude and interfere in the lives of electors to the n'th degree, Gordon Brown has come out the closet and openly admitted that fiscal policy under his stewardship of the economy has included old labour styleee redistribution of wealth (both socially and geographically) and the last time I looked they still hang about under a red flag.
He is also happy to see 'wombles' and other pondlife destroy corporate premises and deface monuments with the police corralling them but taking no other action, while cracking heads of countoryside alliance protesters.
Also, if he's not left wing, why dosn't he vote Tory? If it waddles like a pinko duck, quacks like a pinko duck, and has a penis sticking out from its forehead, it's BLiar and he's a leftie
You're defintely out of touch, but ubderstandably so. Honestly, read up and study the History of genuine, idealogical Left Wing Socialism, and Bliar is so far removed that it is scary.
A lot of us wanted Her out and a Socialist Government in, and were dismayed to see the great pretenders fool everyone. Cleverly done though.
Trouble is, I was gonna point out the considerable failings and weaknesses in your argument (socialist agenda etc) until I read your 'pinko duck' bit, which is so good I'm gonna use it myself from now on. This is genuinely so funny it makes up for your errors.
Also, the New Labour chappies put banning fox hunting into the manifesto....and talked about it....and promised it....never a secret.....and (using the system) the People voted for it. Only in Britain would we slag off a party for doing something that it promised to do and was then democratically elected to do (apart from those who didn't vote but constantly moan about it).
Big Fat F'er said:
Also, the New Labour chappies put banning fox hunting into the manifesto....and talked about it....and promised it....never a secret.....and (using the system) the People voted for it. Only in Britain would we slag off a party for doing something that it promised to do and was then democratically elected to do (apart from those who didn't vote but constantly moan about it).
Hmm.
Some of the people voted for them, most didn't.
Let's face it, in terms of numbers of voters with a specific interest, Fox Hunting was a pretty soft target which, fundamentally, only removes or amends the opportunities for a small percentage of the population - so they don't count, right? Especially since those groups have been generally villified for quite a while now by the rest of the population.
Anyway, by inference and extension, it also means that at the last election we all approved the Iraq war as well - just to pick one example of many. And speed camera policy. Though I'm not sure either of those was in any manifesto.
I'm beginning to wonder which minorities (or maybe even majorities) that I am part of, in a loosely aligned way, are about to come under close examination. I'm sure they have something in mind for just about everyone - except maybe themselves.
Big Fat F'er said:
Trouble is, I was gonna point out the considerable failings and weaknesses in your argument (socialist agenda etc)
You're too kind
Big Fat F'er said:
...until I read your 'pinko duck' bit, which is so good I'm gonna use it myself from now on. This is genuinely so funny it makes up for your errors.
As imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in turn I forgive you for being wrong about BLiar
Big Fat F'er said:
Also, the New Labour chappies put banning fox hunting into the manifesto....and talked about it....and promised it....never a secret.....and (using the system) the People voted for it. Only in Britain would we slag off a party for doing something that it promised to do and was then democratically elected to do (apart from those who didn't vote but constantly moan about it).
For my part that wasn't the grounds for complaint, it was the inclusion of such a trivial class envy issue in the first place, when there were far more pressing matters for the government to deal with, and they're still waiting to be dealt with - not surprising since Socialist Government is the definitive non sequitur
turbobloke said:
....Socialist Government is the definitive non sequitur
Right, that's it. Not only are you intelligent enough to put a reasoned argument forward (even though I disagree with it), now you've started using genuine humour as a weapon. It's disgraceful AND it's another joke I'm gonna nick.
I happen to support the ban on fox hunting, and it's sod all to do with class. You may disagree with it (in which case you are wrong, foppish, middle class and right wing) but it WAS in the manifesto and it WAS democratically voted for. Unlike the war and speedos.
Ha HA! Make a joke of that then.
Big Fat F'er said:
Also, the New Labour chappies put banning fox hunting into the manifesto....and talked about it....and promised it....never a secret.....and (using the system) the People voted for it.
Would that be the minority who voted for labour or the majority of people who voted against labour?
If you protest about an issue you feel strongly about you stand a reasonable chance of being arrested. If you break into someones house you stand a reasonable chance of not being arrested. This is not police policy it is government policy...... The police officers involved in policing the fuel protests pay the same costs as we do (they don't get free cars to ferry them about when off duty) and probably supported the protests, however they had orders to maintain "law and order" and the policing became rather Orwellian..... This was to save political fall out and had nothing to do with New Labour protecting its citizens.
Big Fat F'er said:That may be so for YGS but not everyone is as rational as you BFF, the real issues for or against are lost on many socialists. There are many old labour types who see the foxhunting issue in purely class terms.
I happen to support the ban on fox hunting, and it's sod all to do with class.
Big Fat F'er said:I disagree with the hunting ban but only because it represents an area where, for me, the government has no need to intervene. Interfering leftist governments see no boundary on meddling in electors' lifestyles.
You may disagree with it (in which case you are wrong, foppish, middle class and right wing) but it WAS in the manifesto and it WAS democratically voted for. Unlike the war and speedos. Ha HA! Make a joke of that then.
FWIW I disagreed with the handgun ban too because while it may be an area where there is more cause to intervene, it was clear that a ban would be accepted (unwllingly) by sportsmen and women but ignored by criminals. So it has proved, with gun crime worse than ever. As to hunting, it's got to be a waste of police time to repeatedly brush with hunt protesters, the great unwashed know foxall about countoryside life
turbobloke said:
I disagree with the hunting ban but only because it represents an area where, for me, the government has no need to intervene. Interfering leftist governments see no boundary on meddling in electors' lifestyles.
FWIW I disagreed with the handgun ban too because while it may be an area where there is more cause to intervene, it was clear that a ban would be accepted (unwllingly) by sportsmen and women but ignored by criminals. So it has proved, with gun crime worse than ever. As to hunting, it's got to be a waste of police time to repeatedly brush with hunt protesters, the great unwashed know foxall about countoryside life
It seems its not just the great unwashed that have a problem with basic spelling!! lol!
A handgun ban was the only way to go because otherwise we'd be on the slippery slope to the US and their runaway gun culture. Then we'd have all the arguments about whether shooting a mugger point blank in the face would be justifiable, which would then slowly progress to whether it is wrong or not to blow someone away just because they annoyed you. As someone who has not been immune to road rage in the past I know a gun is not an item to have in your possession at these times (though of course I would have taken my frustration out on their car instead!).
As for fox hunting well I'm afraid it was an issue for the government to meddle in as that's what governments are for, passing laws. It only blew up into a big thing because of the noise made by the (extremely small) minority complaining about it. 200 years ago the ignorant and the barbaric no doubt moaned about the prohibition of slavery or of manhunting peasants or ethnic minorities as some kind of irritating class issue. Its all part of shaping a more civilised society.
jazzyjeff said:
I disagree with the hunting ban but only because it represents an area where, for me, the government has no need to intervene. Interfering leftist governments see no boundary on meddling in electors' lifestyles.
FWIW I disagreed with the handgun ban too because while it may be an area where there is more cause to intervene, it was clear that a ban would be accepted (unwllingly) by sportsmen and women but ignored by criminals. So it has proved, with gun crime worse than ever. As to hunting, it's got to be a waste of police time to repeatedly brush with hunt protesters, the great unwashed know foxall about countoryside life
It seems its not just the great unwashed that have a problem with basic spelling!! lol!
Or maybe reading?
jazzyjeff said:
A handgun ban was the only way to go because otherwise we'd be on the slippery slope to the US and their runaway gun culture. Then we'd have all the arguments about whether shooting a mugger point blank in the face would be justifiable, which would then slowly progress to whether it is wrong or not to blow someone away just because they annoyed you. As someone who has not been immune to road rage in the past I know a gun is not an item to have in your possession at these times (though of course I would have taken my frustration out on their car instead!).
So are you saying you are an unstable person who, outwith the constraints of the law, would find it easily acceptable to travel around ready to dispatch anyone who upset you?
If you re-read turbobloke's post he does point out that the law abiding minority who had an interest - those who had valid licences for handguns for sporting use - reluctantly accepted the blanket ban. It destroyed their sport, or at least their ability to pursue it in this country. But they were only a nerdish minority so it doesn't really matter does it.
The less respectable and reliable members of our expanding social environment, especially those newwly arrived from locations with a history of civil war in recent times, seem not to have been too bothered with the 'ban'. In fact I heard that in London these incomers had virtually rid the streets of the Yardies and their gun culture. Maybe that is why regular random shootings, as opposed to those carried out on a one off basis by people who should be under mental care removed from society, seem to be more prevalent than ever in places like Birmingham and Nottingham. Which make the ban a great success of course!
Still, it is has stopped you shooting someone I suppose it has some merit.
jazzyjeff said:
As for fox hunting well I'm afraid it was an issue for the government to meddle in as that's what governments are for, passing laws.
Indeed. When they are short of a new ideas for things to pass laws about I expect them to go after cars more than 10 years old and anything that cannot seat at least 4 people in some degree of comfort whilst allowing all occupants of any age and infirmity to egress the vehicle in less than 4 seconds.
jazzyjeff said:
It only blew up into a big thing because of the noise made by the (extremely small) minority complaining about it. 200 years ago the ignorant and the barbaric no doubt moaned about the prohibition of slavery or of manhunting peasants or ethnic minorities as some kind of irritating class issue.
Any group with a specific set of interests could be considered to be an 'extremely small' minority. And most of us would fall into the categories several times if our personal interests were listed separately.
Drivers (I am reluctant to use the term 'motorists') are certainly a large minority of the population, possibly a majority. Ford or Vauxhall drivers might be considered a relatively large and important groups with that majority. Whereas people who drive collectors cars, sports cars, anything formerly made in the Midlands, kit cars or, heaven forfend, even TVR's might be considered as targets for sacrifice in the great goal of a 'more civilised' society.
200 years ago people were kidnapped into the British Navy which was a rather barbaric place to be and probably had a similar rate of death to the slave ships. Since slavery in Africa was an ancient business the only difference to the slaves was that they were at sea for a few weeks rather than tramping across deserts. In the longer terms, a few generations on, the general benefits which ultimately accrued to the families of many (though of course not all) who suffered from such transportation might be seen as a positive move for global civilisation rather than a negative one.
Let's skip over the question of achieving a fair balance for so called ethnic minorities for now, other than to say that if a group of travellers had decided to camp out at the entrance to Fawley one wonders if much would have been done.
jazzyjeff said:
Its all part of shaping a more civilised society.
Shaping or forging? And how do get agreement on what is or is not 'more civilised'?
Roll on Brave New World. Specialist groups of genetically engineered human-like creatures to keep the world running and 'save the planet'. As long as they set aside some areas for those of us who don't wish to join that particular model of civilisation I will be happy. Actually it won't matter to me - age will have overtaken most daily concerns by the time they could engineer something like that. But the younger ones out there may be more concerned.
Or maybe not.
You're not Tony Blair are you? Or one of the people from whom he seeks advice? Are you somehow immune from any threat to your own cherished rights and freedoms?
jazzyjeff said:
I disagree with the hunting ban but only because it represents an area where, for me, the government has no need to intervene. Interfering leftist governments see no boundary on meddling in electors' lifestyles.
FWIW I disagreed with the handgun ban too because while it may be an area where there is more cause to intervene, it was clear that a ban would be accepted (unwllingly) by sportsmen and women but ignored by criminals. So it has proved, with gun crime worse than ever. As to hunting, it's got to be a waste of police time to repeatedly brush with hunt protesters, the great unwashed know foxall about countoryside life
It seems its not just the great unwashed that have a problem with basic spelling!! lol!
A handgun ban was the only way to go because otherwise we'd be on the slippery slope to the US and their runaway gun culture. Then we'd have all the arguments about whether shooting a mugger point blank in the face would be justifiable, which would then slowly progress to whether it is wrong or not to blow someone away just because they annoyed you. As someone who has not been immune to road rage in the past I know a gun is not an item to have in your possession at these times (though of course I would have taken my frustration out on their car instead!).
As for fox hunting well I'm afraid it was an issue for the government to meddle in as that's what governments are for, passing laws. It only blew up into a big thing because of the noise made by the (extremely small) minority complaining about it. 200 years ago the ignorant and the barbaric no doubt moaned about the prohibition of slavery or of manhunting peasants or ethnic minorities as some kind of irritating class issue. Its all part of shaping a more civilised society.
You're not wrong. In fact you're perfectly correct. I still remember the 'Fox Hunters' who firstly claimed that they were under attack for reasons of class, and then said the countryside is theirs, and we (the townies) should keep out of things that don't concern us. As he pointed out, we don't understand the countryside, and we ought to leave them alone.
Really. So you own the countryside now do you. Only you know about it. Patronising g*t. It's bad enough that they try and turn the argument into a class war (that it never was) but to then lay claim to large tracts of land that isn't even theirs.
So as long as we stay in our place, no problem, eh. We don't really care about foxes, it's 'cos we don't understand you. Nothing to do with shaping a more civilised society, 'cos that's not our place is it. We understand you alright. You don't fool us, and hopefully you'll stop fooling others as time goes on.
[/quote]
A handgun ban was the only way to go because otherwise we'd be on the slippery slope to the US and their runaway gun culture.[/quote]
"The right of self-defence is the first law of nature. When the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." (John Locke 1632-1704)
that great Philosopher John Lock seems to have known what our recent Governments were like 300 Years ago!!, its true B.Liar is a Dictator just as bad as Hitler
camper
MilnerR said:
Would that be the minority who voted for labour or the majority of people who voted against labour?
The majority of people didn't even vote and england the majority of people who did vote didn't vote for Labour.
Due to the social make up of consituancies you find that the actual result of the election is decided by a realitively small number of consituancies.
Further within those consituancies the majority of people will vote the same regardless of party policies.
The upshot is the actual result of the election was decided by the voting pattern of about 250,000 people. The alternative way of looking at this is that for 99.6 of the population their vote means nothing
Big Fat F'er said:
camper said:
its true B.Liar is a Dictator just as bad as Hitler
Don't be so silly....
Fair point, the propaganda from Adolf's spin machine was far more transparent, BLiar leaves the lot standing. Edited to add - Hitler also managed to put his obscene views forward without hiding behind spurious environmental or safety concerns (difficult to imagine how he could) but with Mandy's help anything would have been possible... with the exception of assisting with mortgage applications.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 25th September 15:48
jazzyjeff said:
A handgun ban was the only way to go because otherwise we'd be on the slippery slope to the US and their runaway gun culture. Then we'd have all the arguments about whether shooting a mugger point blank in the face would be justifiable, which would then slowly progress to whether it is wrong or not to blow someone away just because they annoyed you. As someone who has not been immune to road rage in the past I know a gun is not an item to have in your possession at these times (though of course I would have taken my frustration out on their car instead!).
With respect, absolute nonsense. The gun ownership laws were tightened up after Hungerford and the owners of legally held firearms had a lot of hoops to jump through before Dunblane. There is no evidence to suggest a boom in gun ownership (pun intended!) was taking place before the ban - far from it, the club at which I was a member had such a small intake of new members, because getting into the sport was such a ballache, that overall membership dropped steadily. All IMHO, of course.....
Julian
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff