[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It says 37% of the population were wrong

...and that 63% were more probably right.

Having said that,I blame Tony Blair for this, he went on about fairer elections until he got power.
He and Paddy Ashdown had talks and ideas as to a re-alignment of the left and electoral reform.

Had Blair got a much smaller majority in 1997,it may have been that he would have proposed change after the 2001 election.

No chance now at present but that does not negate the argument that it is ridiculous for a party to get less than 4 out of 10 people voting for it and to then be able to govern unchecked at all.

Silly comparison but a commons vote could not be won with less than 4 out of 10 MPs supporting it.
The Conservatives are quick to go on about legitimate majorities Unions should have to call for strikes.
Yet they can govern despite 6 out of 10 of every voters voting against them.
The same applies to the Labour govt; of 2005 too.

[arista]

"The Conservatives were voted in democratically whichever way you try to spin it."

Bang On Right Livia

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

The rioters lost any point they may have had when they did this, don't dare try to play it down. It was disgusting on the anniversary of VE day. How dare they do that to a memorial to people worth twenty of them.

The Conservatives were voted in democratically whichever way you try to spin it. If you don't like it, riot. What a pathetic bunch of people the rioters are...

But they didn't all deface it, did they Livia. One or maybe a small group did and yes, that is disgusting, but you can't possibly pin it on everyone there, and you know that perfectly well, but you're in full on spindoctoring mode at the moment so there's little point trying to ask for reason I suppose.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But they didn't all deface it, did they Livia. One or maybe a small group did and yes, that is disgusting, but you can't possibly pin it on everyone there, and you know that perfectly well, but you're in full on spindoctoring mode at the moment so there's little point trying to ask for reason I suppose.

well she is not saying all 100 held the can but it was them

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well she is not saying all 100 held the can but it was them

She is, though.

"the rioters lost any point they may have had when they did this"

Only the ones who did it lost their point. Surely.

Come on LT, you're the one whose always insisting that we don't judge entire police forces for one scumbag cop getting trigger happy. That people are wrong to turn their gaze to the entire force and that the blame lies with the one corrupt individual. Or am I remembering that wrongly?

Or do the rules of culpability simply morph to fit your prejudice?

[Ammi]

..the 'rioters' though as opposed to the 'protesters' and doesn't rioting mostly lose it's point...so it's not really inaccurate/what Liv said...

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

The rioters lost any point they may have had when they did this, don't dare try to play it down. It was disgusting on the anniversary of VE day. How dare they do that to a memorial to people worth twenty of them.

The Conservatives were voted in democratically whichever way you try to spin it. If you don't like it, riot. What a pathetic bunch of people the rioters are...

It's a bit silly (and convenient) to throw away the validity of the protest because of the actions of a few *****.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a bit silly (and convenient) to throw away the validity of the protest because of the actions of a few *****.

I agree.
To even attempt to dismiss the validity of what was being protested about does a massive injustice to all those who genuinely feel what will be happening as to cuts being wrong and unjustified especially to the most vulnerable.

Some might like to make that rightful protest as to those such cuts go away by jumping straight onto highlighting a much smaller negative side of this march/protest.
There would be in fact no need for marches and protests by anyone if decency was in evidence, and such threats of cuts to the most vulnerable were non existent.

I condemn the defacing of the war memorial as much as anyone but in doing so I condemn only those who did the defacing.
Not the rest of most likely decent people who actually care and get off their backsides and try to do something about these savage cruel cuts.
Who then get wholly generalised as left wing militants.

Some might not want to care a jot at what's in store for the most vulnerable, sick and disabled in the UK but many others do it seems, thankfully.
Despite the unfair derision they get trying to do something about it.

When's the next march I want to know,I will be on it for sure.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the 'rioters' though as opposed to the 'protesters' and doesn't rioting mostly lose it's point...so it's not really inaccurate/what Liv said...

There's a hair's breadth between a protest and a riot when emotions are running high and whilst you're right that rioting generally loses the original point (as happened in 2011 when it decended into looting), losing the point does not mean that there was never a valid point to begin with. Trying to use the fact that things went bad to drown out the original point is disingenuous. It's spin. Pure and simple.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a bit silly (and convenient) to throw away the validity of the protest because of the actions of a few *****.

and what was the protest about in your view?

all I could see was people with "Tory scum" banners

I take it they mean the average UK folks who voted for the Conservatives or do they mean the democratically elected people that they voted for

this was some of the rag tag hooligans and law breakers who attended

Various groups said they supported the protest, including London Black Revs, The Brick Lane Debates, BirminghamStrong Justice 4 ALL, Kashmiri Students Campaign UK, Rojava Solidarity Working Group, Class War, Occupy Democracy, Occupy UAL, Our Brixton and Sisters Uncut.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Whitehall.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a hair's breadth between a protest and a riot when emotions are running high and whilst you're right that rioting generally loses the original point (as happened in 2011 when it decended into looting), losing the point does not mean that there was never a valid point to begin with. Trying to use the fact that things went bad to drown out the original point is disingenuous. It's spin. Pure and simple.

how many of that rabble do you think actually voted?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

how many of that rabble do you think actually voted?

I wouldn't presume to know or guess, and is largely irrelevant. You might assume it's a low number but you can't possibly be doing anything but guessing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I wouldn't presume to know or guess, and is largely irrelevant. You might assume it's a low number but you can't possibly be doing anything but guessing.

yes I agree a very low number. they would rather attack the police than actually do something democratic.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

She is, though.

"the rioters lost any point they may have had when they did this"

Only the ones who did it lost their point. Surely.

Come on LT, you're the one whose always insisting that we don't judge entire police forces for one scumbag cop getting trigger happy. That people are wrong to turn their gaze to the entire force and that the blame lies with the one corrupt individual. Or am I remembering that wrongly?

Or do the rules of culpability simply morph to fit your prejudice?

yes but what about all the ones attacking the police?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes I agree a very low number. they would rather attack the police than actually do something democratic.

You don't agree. I said YOU might assume it's a low number. I would actually guess it's a relatively high number. Higher than the pathetic national average, anyway. The people who didn't bother to vote aren't out rioting, they're at home watching a Jeremy Kyle from 2005 on ITV2+1 HD 1080i.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a hair's breadth between a protest and a riot when emotions are running high and whilst you're right that rioting generally loses the original point (as happened in 2011 when it decended into looting), losing the point does not mean that there was never a valid point to begin with. Trying to use the fact that things went bad to drown out the original point is disingenuous. It's spin. Pure and simple.

..it's true that the reasons behind protests shouldn't be lost ..but isn't that the way though even if it wasn't a protest..if someone felt that they had something to say to you and were causing destruction to your property to get your attention, their reasons for any issues they had with you would become lost because listening to them wouldn't be where your focus was..and if the voices were lost in this particular protest then they were lost by the people or person who chose to deface a war memorial..no one here is drowning out an original point, it was those or the person who did it who did that...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You don't agree. I said YOU might assume it's a low number. I would actually guess it's a relatively high number. Higher than the pathetic national average, anyway. The people who didn't bother to vote aren't out rioting, they're at home watching a Jeremy Kyle from 2005 on ITV2+1 HD 1080i.

lol you may be right. My local area had 72 % and its rural and there are little if any of that type of person so I am left scratching my head as to why they did not vote

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 specfic 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'.

I am confounded though at ANYONE who can accept any kind of protest - peaceful or otherwise - at the results of a fairly held, constitutionally correct, democratic General Election, because what is TRULY being protested about and opposed here, is DEMOCRACY itself - let us not delude ourselves.

As BitOnTheSlide and others have already eloquently stated, we have a democratic procedure in place and the Conservatives won the election fair and square under that process.

It is notable that NO ONE on here was protesting about how UNFAIR that process was BEFORE the Election.

Indeed,when it was pointed out by certain members that despite securing almost 4 million votes UKIP has only ONE voice in Parliament whilst the SNP secured 56 seats with half of the UKIP number of votes, certain FM's were quick to point out that such was the system, and still others pointed out that the General Public had been presented with the opportunity to democratically change the system but did not avail themselve of it.

It is predictable that now the Left wing on here are defending these 'protests' because they are anti-Tory, but the inescapable truth is that peaceful or not, the protests are ludicrous when we have just held a General Election.

You ask: ''Where are the freedoms in this country now?'' while conveniently IGNORING the fact that these knobhead protesters are UTILISING just ONE of the many freedoms which our DEMOCRACY affords them. The very DEMOCRACY they are now protesting against.

The great and enraging IRONY here, is that while the peaceful element were availing themselves of the FREEDOM to demonstrate and protest, the inevitable 'professional anti-democratic, anti-Tory, anti-UK, anti-patriotic anarchist morons use that same freedom to desicrate a memorial to all the couragous patriotic women who FOUGHT and DIED for that very freedom.

If the Police ever catch the one/ones responsible, I will gladly VOLUNTER to put a bullet firmly and squarely in thecentre of their useless obsidian eyes.

If this is what the Left Wing stand for now, then I for one sincerely hope that the Labour Party NEVER win another General election ever again.

''Great Democracies
have always
encountered
violent
opposition from
mindless morons.''
Kirk Knowswell.

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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the 'rioters' though as opposed to the 'protesters' and doesn't rioting mostly lose it's point...so it's not really inaccurate/what Liv said...

Exacly Ammi,they are rioters,NOT protesters.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Exacly Ammi,they are rioters,NOT protesters.

Some are, not all with respect.

[joeysteele]

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.

Bizarre Kizzy.

Note the she is now 'Labour supporting .....',as if that should be seen as a bad thing.

Has anyone any evidence this march has a thing to do with the Labour party, it is a march against austerity and the cuts in the main.
Or should people only be allowed to protest if a Labour govt; was in power,

I am definitely going on the next protest march against these cuts,no matter when or where it is.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Bizarre Kizzy.

Note the she is now 'Labour supporting .....',as if that should be seen as a bad thing.

Has anyone any evidence this march has a thing to do with the Labour party, it is a march against austerity and the cuts in the main.
Or should people only be allowed to protest if a Labour govt; was in power,

I am definitely going on the next protest march against these cuts,no matter when or where it is.

Good on ya Joey.

I just wish the tiny anarchist mentality types would stay at home for serious protests like this and leave it to the genuine majority.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Bizarre Kizzy.

Note the she is now 'Labour supporting',as if that should be seen as a bad thing.

Has anyone any evidence this march has a thing to do with the Labour party, it is a march against austerity and the cuts in the main.
Or should people only be allowed to protest if a Labour govt; was in power,

I am definitely going on the next protest march against these cuts,no matter when or where it is.

It's an anti austerity protest, all of a sudden everyone involved is an anti establishment rioter hell bent on wreaking havoc across the capital
They've been kettling and taking everyones details in parliament square so I wouldn't if I were you, I have a sneaking suspicion you would end up on some blacklist.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Bizarre Kizzy.

Note the she is now 'Labour supporting .....',as if that should be seen as a bad thing.

Has anyone any evidence this march has a thing to do with the Labour party, it is a march against austerity and the cuts in the main.
Or should people only be allowed to protest if a Labour govt; was in power,

I am definitely going on the next protest march against these cuts,no matter when or where it is.

I get what you are saying, there is no indication that any of the major parties were represented in this riot. However ..... people cant have it every way ... in other threads people have been collectively pooling the "not conservative" parties together and saying that represented a vote against the conservatives, where the reality is it was actually support for the individual parties manifesto's nothing more. Indeed, the only true anti austerity parties were in Scotland and Wales, all the other parties had some proposed austerity plans, just implemented in different ways.

I fail to see how those that support democracy cannot see that this riot was purely and simply an attack on democracy.

[Vanessa]

I like the tories so far. Not that we had much choice this time. Ed was a joke.