[Gstar]

I think that protests are a good way of expressing opinion or disagreement with something. When it turns to violent riots and people getting hurt then no

[Gstar]

Originally Posted by Chaos

I wonder what people would say if it were the other way around - tories rioting over a labour win... Would people be as sympathetic then? I very much doubt it.

Same difference. I'm not happy with the result (didn't vote conservatives) but nevertheless; let's not forget that David Cameron has young children who are probably very scared right now

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Ice cold is a good description,I was looking and hoping to see some change after David Cameron talked about one nation party again and being fairer,after his election win.

However as usual with him, actions say far more than his words of any comfort.
Him now re-appointing Ian Duncan Smith as works and pensions secretary,signals to me no change and even worse to come again now.
So much then for being fairer.

Ian Duncan Smith has not got a single piece of compassion about him,I will never understand how such a dismal failure of a politician,(even as leader, the Conservatives got rid of him before he could even led them into an election),is permitted to have any power as to anyone's lives and incomes at all, never mind the most vulnerable peoples lives in society.

IDS has been given his old position? wow salt in the wound... I hope he is prosecuted with the full force of the law for his human rights abuses.
What many don't seem to realise is it's not the conservatives anyone is against as such, it's the savage cuts that are going to cripple the poor and disabled. Yes all parties would have had to cut but would not have sliced so deep and spread them over time offset with taxes for the rich too.
If the conservatives adopted a less heartless approach to austerity nobody would have anything to protest over would they?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Ice cold is a good description,I was looking and hoping to see some change after David Cameron talked about one nation party again and being fairer,after his election win.

However as usual with him, actions say far more than his words of any comfort.
Him now re-appointing Ian Duncan Smith as works and pensions secretary,signals to me no change and even worse to come again now.
So much then for being fairer.

Ian Duncan Smith has not got a single piece of compassion about him,I will never understand how such a dismal failure of a politician,(even as leader, the Conservatives got rid of him before he could even led them into an election),is permitted to have any power as to anyone's lives and incomes at all, never mind the most vulnerable peoples lives in society.

I feel sorry for David Cameron though Joey because if he tried to remove Ian Duncan Smith I think that David Cameron would be removed as more of the Tory MP's agree with Ian Duncan Smith's stances than they do David Cameron's.

[Jemal]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Then I'm disgusting and proud to be.

And me.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Then I'm disgusting and proud to be.

Originally Posted by Jemal

And me.

Count me in. Trumps not exactly credible round here is he The racist UKIP nonsense has been quite hilarious to read but now suddenly he is a tory

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She has as much right to protest against the austerity measures as anyone.
Why are you working yourself up about this and suggesting you would shoot people? Get some perspective.

I write a post specifically detailing just WHY I suspect multi-millionaire Charlotte Church's reasons for becoming suddenly political. I DO NOT broach the subject of any rights she has to protest or otherwise. Despite this, you completely MISINTERPRET the entire point of my post and respond with:

A) ''Charlotte Church was a peaceful protester in Cardiff where there were no issues with social order, and is entitled to protest if she wants''

I answer you with a comprehensive, lucidly written post where I explain:

B) ''You are seriously missing the whole point of the particular post of mine which you are responding to, because in that post I do not deny anyone's right to participate in 'peaceful protest' but instead express my specific opinion and view of Church's TRUE motives for suddenly acquiring a social and political conscience and becoming, first a voter for the first time, and secondly a Labour supporting 'peaceful protester''.

Having had the courtesy of this explanation, you then respond with:

D) ''She has as much right to protest against the austerity measures as anyone.''



FUTILITY
fjʊˈtɪlɪti,fjuːˈtɪlɪti
noun
pointlessness or uselessness.

I rest my case.

As for; ''Why are you working yourself up about this and suggesting you would shoot people? Get some perspective.''

Why is it perfectly valid for protesters clutching bunches of 'sour grapes' to protest against the legitimate results of a democratically carried out Election -some of them angrily - but invalid and questionable when I react with anger about anti-democratic anarchist vermin rioting in our streets,injuring policemen, and defacing the War Memorial of courageous women who gave their lives for this country.

In asking YOUR question of me though, you do perfectly sum up in a nutshell the great problem on here.

1) Any view that does not fit in with the majority Left Wing view is wrong.
2) Anyone expressing any view which does not fit in with the majority Left Wing view needs to get some 'perspective'.
3) Only Left wingers can legitimately be 'moved' by an event to post their opinion.
4) Anyone not Left wing who is sufficiently 'moved' by an event to actually post is then queried by the Left Wing as to why they are ''working'' themselves ''up''.

I care as much for my causes as you do yours and my reverence for our fallen war heroes is as deep as your affection is for your hero Russell Brand.

My hatred for the useless scum who defaced the Women's world war 2 memorial is genuine, and completely cold and rationally I will repeat:

I would volunteer to shoot the disgusting bastards straight between the eyes.

How's that for an anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, anti-law and order, perspective?

Am I becoming Left wing?

[bots]

The labour party and left wing politics don't have exclusivity over compassion and helping those with needs in our society. The approach to achieving it is just not the same.

As a tory supporter I have had nothing but contempt for IDS since he first appeared as their new leader. I think it is a serious error of judgement on Cameron's part to re-appoint him to his cabinet. He should have been relegated to the back benches. I'm always highly suspicious when people end up in posts clearly above their pay grade like IDS has had all through his career. He must have some very powerful friends.

[user104658]

Kirk, you do realise that when you say to spray bullets into the crowd, and suggest that someone hand you a rifle to shoot these people between the eyes, you are using the language of extremism? I'm not even joking or just trying to get a rise. Your posts are becoming increasingly frantic and violent and have been for weeks. You are becoming an extremist.

extremist
[ik-stree-mist]

noun

1. a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.

2. a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.



Really I'm only saying this because it seems like you're starting to lose all sense of rational perspective. There's disagreeing with a stance... And then there's stating in all seriousness that you would gun someone down in cold blood. Wtf kirk.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

IDS has been given his old position? wow salt in the wound... I hope he is prosecuted with the full force of the law for his human rights abuses.
What many don't seem to realise is it's not the conservatives anyone is against as such, it's the savage cuts that are going to cripple the poor and disabled. Yes all parties would have had to cut but would not have sliced so deep and spread them over time offset with taxes for the rich too.
If the conservatives adopted a less heartless approach to austerity nobody would have anything to protest over would they?

This is when, and only when, they lost me completely Kizzy, even as a Conservative supporter until I was 17,in 2009,although I still voted Conservative for the council until 2011.

I have never read of,post war, or heard of from anyone far older than me,the real nastiness and unjust heartlessness against the group of most vulnerable people in UK society,like the politics this govt; ended up directing at them.

You are exactly right,if these cuts were not being made to those people then there would be little to protest about.
I am actually proud that Labour never would have gone down this route,I am dismayed that anyone can even have any support for the sick and disabled getting hammered even more.

If that is the only way to really help get rid of a deficit,then I'd rather the deficit be left to be got rid of far more slowly.
It is,for me, completely beyond all decency and understanding that David Cameron has left this truly vile politician,Ian Duncan Smith in his previous position at all.

In fact despite Cameron's fine words after the election, all his main positions stay the same.
Hardline George Osborne as Chancellor, the truly absolute waste of space Theresa May as Home secretary and the totally ineffectual Philip Hammond as Foreign secretary.

None of that indicates to me any change of attitude from this govt; at all.

Like you, I really hope some action does come and get Ian Duncan Smith pilloried in the future too.
I really believe leaders like,like Churchill,Eden, McMillan, Heath,yes even Margaret Thatcher must be turning in their graves at this Conservative govts; heartless and unjust treatment of the most vulnerable.
A road none of them would have likely even thought of going down, even in their hardest periods in govt:

It is unbelievable,that anyone, I am sorry to say, could support such policies and cuts against the weakest in society.
I have never admired cowards,to attack and bring down the poorest and weakest is one of the most cowardly acts,in any walk of life, anyone can do.
Yet there are people who have supported this happening again,well 37% of them at any rate as you pointed out earlier.

I mix in political circles,I have met,both when I was a student and also since graduating, many politicians of all parties.
I know in the Conservative party, there are a great many who detest these welfare cuts and policies, they are forced to support them,and in fear of not getting possibly any promotion or ending up being disgraced by the party, they do so.
The 64% and what a figure that is,that voted against these welfare cuts in the election passed,deserved much better for their efforts to stop them happening than the result they got.

However clear warnings were given that to split the vote against this govt; would only ensure such heartless action as to policy would continue.
It does not however,alter the fact, that for the first time probably, every single opposition party, including the Lib Dems to be fair, were against more cuts in welfare against the most vulnerable.

Therefore any govt; that really had any compassion at all or as I said before a single shred of decency,would accept that 64% of voters did that and take it into consideration.

With Ian Duncan Smith again in place with his vindictive agenda, clearly nothing has changed,despite Cameron's words,so clearly this govt; again just will not listen and consult properly as to the drastic and serious effects its cuts have as to the most vulnerable.

If you cannot win at the ballot box, despite voting for a party that wanted an end to welfare cuts against the most vulnerable.
People have 2 choices, sit back and let the heartless polices go on, or try to bring attention to same,never giving up.
At least some effort was made by those protesting to bring it to the attention of all.
Sadly all they got, was the media waiting for something or someone to kick off and then report that only.

Which then opened the floodgates and gave gave the ammunition to those hardline supporters of the Conservative party, to brush over and cast aside the issue of heartless cuts to the weakest,and have a field day as to their outrage at the smaller negative part of this march/protest.
They do not however, have that same outrage as to their govts; rotten heartless cuts to people sick, disabled and vulnerable.
They don't appear to matter at all to such people, maybe it is not so hard to see why this lot got put in power again then.

I add one thing, I condemn 100% the defacing of the war memorial, any war memorial by anyone for any reason.
However,by the same token, all those very same people,I dare bet, who those war memorials are really for, would have been left sick to the stomach by what this govt; is doing to the sick,disabled,and most vulnerable in society.

Most of them fought and gave their lives fighting and helping to bring about a better world and country.
Not one that kicks repeatedly and endlessly those most in need and who are the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Probably not, but then, Labour hasn't spent the last 5 years destroying people's lives sooo...

no they spent the years before that 5 killing civilians in Iraq...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I feel sorry for David Cameron though Joey because if he tried to remove Ian Duncan Smith I think that David Cameron would be removed as more of the Tory MP's agree with Ian Duncan Smith's stances than they do David Cameron's.

Cameron has some fear of Ian Duncan Smith I think Mock.
He did try, it was reported to move him during the last govt; in a re-shuffle, however Ian Duncan Smith, it was said, refused to go to another post.
So was left in place.

Clearly on the backbenches, Cameron felt Ian Duncan Smith could be a probable danger to him.

If that was the case then, well sorry, that is weak leadership,it doesn't inspire me with pity for Cameron at all.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no they spent the years before that 5 killing civilians in Iraq...

That's ok though isn't it LT,it doesn't affect us !!! well said btw,now I am off before I get shot

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32678518

here we see the "small minority of protesters" try and injure hard working, working class, policemen who are just trying to protect innocent citizens

meanwhile other crime in London goes on as the police have to deal with these idiots


great job protesters

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no they spent the years before that 5 killing civilians in Iraq...

Moot point; the Tories would have gone to war in Iraq if they had been in power.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Moot point; the Tories would have gone to war in Iraq if they had been in power.

Probably, although MPs were misled over the legality and justification for the war and there is of course no way of knowing how the behind-the-scenes discussions would have played out with a Tory government, the Commons had very little involvement in it all

[bots]

It amazes me how quickly people forget the trumped up basis on which the labour party went to war in Iraq. The fixed enquiry by Hutton, and then the image of the obscenity that is Tony Blair smiling as he said the government was not at fault for the death of David Kelly.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I write a post specifically detailing just WHY I suspect multi-millionaire Charlotte Church's reasons for becoming suddenly political. I DO NOT broach the subject of any rights she has to protest or otherwise. Despite this, you completely MISINTERPRET the entire point of my post and respond with:

A) ''Charlotte Church was a peaceful protester in Cardiff where there were no issues with social order, and is entitled to protest if she wants''

I answer you with a comprehensive, lucidly written post where I explain:

B) ''You are seriously missing the whole point of the particular post of mine which you are responding to, because in that post I do not deny anyone's right to participate in 'peaceful protest' but instead express my specific opinion and view of Church's TRUE motives for suddenly acquiring a social and political conscience and becoming, first a voter for the first time, and secondly a Labour supporting 'peaceful protester''.

Having had the courtesy of this explanation, you then respond with:

D) ''She has as much right to protest against the austerity measures as anyone.''



FUTILITY
fjʊˈtɪlɪti,fjuːˈtɪlɪti
noun
pointlessness or uselessness.

I rest my case.

As for; ''Why are you working yourself up about this and suggesting you would shoot people? Get some perspective.''

Why is it perfectly valid for protesters clutching bunches of 'sour grapes' to protest against the legitimate results of a democratically carried out Election -some of them angrily - but invalid and questionable when I react with anger about anti-democratic anarchist vermin rioting in our streets,injuring policemen, and defacing the War Memorial of courageous women who gave their lives for this country.

In asking YOUR question of me though, you do perfectly sum up in a nutshell the great problem on here.

1) Any view that does not fit in with the majority Left Wing view is wrong.
2) Anyone expressing any view which does not fit in with the majority Left Wing view needs to get some 'perspective'.
3) Only Left wingers can legitimately be 'moved' by an event to post their opinion.
4) Anyone not Left wing who is sufficiently 'moved' by an event to actually post is then queried by the Left Wing as to why they are ''working'' themselves ''up''.

I care as much for my causes as you do yours and my reverence for our fallen war heroes is as deep as your affection is for your hero Russell Brand.

My hatred for the useless scum who defaced the Women's world war 2 memorial is genuine, and completely cold and rationally I will repeat:

I would volunteer to shoot the disgusting bastards straight between the eyes.

How's that for an anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, anti-law and order, perspective?

Am I becoming Left wing?

No you're not becoming left wing you're becoming irrational. She wasn't protesting against the democratic process, just the proposed austerity cuts.
I think you're confusing yourself, she didn't attend the London protest where the disorder took place... She marched in Cardiff to the Aneurin Bevan memorial.
When you start suggesting actual violence then I'm sorry for me the conversation is over.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32678518

here we see the "small minority of protesters" try and injure hard working, working class, policemen who are just trying to protect innocent citizens

meanwhile other crime in London goes on as the police have to deal with these idiots


great job protesters

I'm quite disgusted at this thread. How people can justify this pathetic riot is amazing, but not wholly unexpected. I remember "protestors" throwing a fire extinguisher from the top of Tory HQ, luckily it didn't kill anyone but it was an extreme act of violence and yet people were still saying they had a point.

Don't like the result of the election? Let's riot, and some people who didn't get the election result they wanted will back us. I wonder how many of those rioters have a job? I'm guessing not many. And sadly for the people who went along to peacefully protest - because even if I don't agree with them I do uphold their right to peaceful protest - their message has been lost on the majority, overshadowed by the reckless acts of the few. But some people are backing them! Astonishing.

The thread is the most depressing indictment of the left I've seen for a while, and it's up against some stiff competition.

[Niamh.]

More people obviously wanted them in then not so these "protesters" really don't have valid case at all

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

More people obviously wanted them in then not so these "protesters" really don't have valid case at all

That's not really how it works Niamh, they didn't even get 40% of the popular vote. I suppose you can't assume that everyone who didn't vote Tory was actively against having a Tory government... but you can't assume that they weren't, either. I'm relatively confident in saying that anyone who voted Labour, SNP, Green, most Independents, and a good chunk of Lib Dem would not have wanted a Tory government.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's not really how it works Niamh, they didn't even get 40% of the popular vote. I suppose you can't assume that everyone who didn't vote Tory was actively against having a Tory government... but you can't assume that they weren't, either. I'm relatively confident in saying that anyone who voted Labour, SNP, Green, most Independents, and a good chunk of Lib Dem would not have wanted a Tory government.

Probably not but they're the breaks of having a democracy

[user104658]

I'd also throw out there that even if they had an overwhelming majority of the vote - say 70% - that still wouldn't mean that the people who are against it don't have a "valid case". Popular does not mean "right", and there have been some pretty horrendous regimes throughout history that have had a large amount of public support with only pockets of resistance. Would you say that those people in those pockets of resistance have never had "a valid case"?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'd also throw out there that even if they had an overwhelming majority of the vote - say 70% - that still wouldn't mean that the people who are against it don't have a "valid case". Popular does not mean "right", and there have been some pretty horrendous regimes throughout history that have had a large amount of public support with only pockets of resistance. Would you say that those people in those pockets of resistance have never had "a valid case"?

Not if it's voted for fairly no

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Probably not but they're the breaks of having a democracy

True, but I don't see it as any reason that people have to just roll over and take it up the tailpipe. Majority rule isn't always a good thing. Refusing to conform to popular opinion is not a character flaw. Sometimes, popular opinion is stupid and dangerous.

But then, I've been pretty open about that in the past. I have my reservations about full democracy. I don't trust "people in general" - I think they're stupid, ignorant and easily lead. That goes for voters of all parties by the way I'm not making assumptions about any one group... it's just people. "Average Intelligence" = "Quite Stupid".