Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Obviously you don’t care one iota about the majority whose lives are disrupted by a selfish minority.

Oh, and incidentally, the government has not, and does not intend to ban protests.

Yeah how selfish of them to fight to keep their jobs, pensions and rights and I'd say if they police can say one loan person protesting is a nuisance and stop them then the right to protest is seriously curtailed for all of us

---------- Post added at 01:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Why do you need charisma? Just somebody competent would do, from any party would do.

We seem to be choosing leaders based on personality/tweets, rather than policies or their competences, like any other job.

All part of the dumbing down reality tv obsessed culture we've become.

Is bozo charismatic, I was bored of his act after his second appearance on Have I Got News For You, calling people stupid childish names isn't charisma nor is it leadership, might be why the country is in the state it's in now but still he might mumble something in latin later if we're really lucky.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yeah how selfish of them to fight to keep their jobs, pensions and rights and I'd say if they police can say one loan person protesting is a nuisance and stop them then the right to protest is seriously curtailed for all of us.

What the legislation does is to permit protests but not to obstruct or cause a nuisance to the rest of us. Anarchy is supported by a very tiny proportion of people in this country, and we must clamp down on these people who seem to get a kick out of inconveniencing others.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What the legislation does is to permit protests but not to obstruct or cause a nuisance to the rest of us. Anarchy is supported by a very tiny proportion of people in this country, and we must clamp down on these people who seem to get a kick out of inconveniencing others.

The whole point of protest is to draw attention to a situation creating
obstruction or nuisance does that and whilst it is a pain in the backside it’s not the slippery slope to anarchy to which you seem to be trying to draw parallels with.

Imagine the suffragettes movement if they couldn’t cause an obstruction…..

Or, perhaps you would like the free speech zone a la arrested development

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What the legislation does is to permit protests but not to obstruct or cause a nuisance to the rest of us. Anarchy is supported by a very tiny proportion of people in this country, and we must clamp down on these people who seem to get a kick out of inconveniencing others.

You're not really into democracy are you

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The whole point of protest is to draw attention to a situation creating
obstruction or nuisance does that and whilst it is a pain in the backside it’s not the slippery slope to anarchy to which you seem to be trying to draw parallels with.

Imagine the suffragettes movement if they couldn’t cause an obstruction…..

Or, perhaps you would like the free speech zone a la arrested development

I’m all for free speech. However, obstruction should rightly be against the law. It’s bully boy tactics and should not be tolerated.

---------- Post added at 15:51 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You're not really into democracy are you

You seem to have a strange idea as to what democracy is. It is certainly not about getting your own way through bullying others.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You seem to have a strange idea as to what democracy is. It is certainly not about getting your own way through bullying others.

The right to protest or withdraw labour are the very cornerstones of a functioning democracy, that's not strange, thinking they're not is strange.

We have some of the toughest strike laws in the world, certainly far tougher than are needed to become an MP in terms of vote percentage but rather than question that you'd rather rally behind the party's imagined enemy

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The right to protest or withdraw labour are the very cornerstones of a functioning democracy

Says who ?

Democracy

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose governing officials to do so.

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

I sure protests and/or the obstruction of people going about their lawful business are not actual requirements for democracy, nor are strikes (which often benefit no-one).

The right to strike or protest should be protected though and it's very naive to think that the more power you are willing to give the Government to curtail people's rights won't, at some point, be used against you.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m all for free speech. However, obstruction should rightly be against the law. It’s bully boy tactics and should not be tolerated.

---------- Post added at 15:51 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------



You seem to have a strange idea as to what democracy is. It is certainly not about getting your own way through bullying others.

So, how would you have handled the suffragettes? Had they not protested the way they had they probably would not have achieved their aims

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Says who ?

The UN, ECHR, you know the types this government demonise where ever possible

Originally Posted by Damien

The right to strike or protest should be protected though and it's very naive to think that the more power you are willing to give the Government to curtail people's rights won't, at some point, be used against you.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Is bozo charismatic, I was bored of his act after his second appearance on Have I Got News For You

Bozo was marmite, people either liked or hated him.

Starmer is more like a Ryvita cracker. No one really cares for them either way.

Protests have been curbed gradually over the years. Police now found out who is organising a protest and try to tell them where to go and when. So only an adlib/anonymous protest with no central figure can get around this and its why the anonymous protests couldn't be controlled. They did manage to control the media to stop the news showing the thousands of people there in case more showed up though.

The more control they have over protests, the less impactful protests are.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Paul

Says who ?

Democracy





I sure protests and/or the obstruction of people going about their lawful business are not actual requirements for democracy, nor are strikes (which often benefit no-one).

Except Arthur Scargill.

[1andrew1]

More undemocratic tendencies from this government exposed

Leaked report suggests Dominic Raab trying to curb judges’ powers

Exclusive: Deputy prime minister has been accused of wanting ‘a world in which the government is above the law’

Dominic Raab is planning to curb judges’ powers in a move likely to make it harder to bring successful legal challenges against the government in England and Wales, according to a leaked document seen by the Guardian.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) paper suggests the justice secretary, who is also deputy prime minister, is considering changes that would have the effect of limiting ministers’ accountability in judicial reviews brought by claimants concerned about the way decisions have been taken by public bodies.

Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “This leaked document suggests that the government plans to make it even harder for people to challenge them and make themselves even less accountable to the public.

“Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen an unprecedented assault on our legal rights, including in the Judicial Review and Courts Act and through ongoing proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act. The government is determined to make it as difficult as possible to take them to court and hold them accountable for unlawful actions.

“Whether by putting up more barriers to bringing cases, overturning judgments they don’t like or blocking off more and more actions from challenge, the government’s attempts to avoid accountability set a very dangerous precedent for all future governments of all stripes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-judges-powers

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The UN, ECHR, you know the types this government demonise where ever possible

So just another of you anti tory/governmant rants. Got it.

---------- Post added at 23:57 ---------- Previous post was at 23:51 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Except Arthur Scargill.

I didnt realise until now he's actually still alive.
A nasty piece of work to be sure, but I'm not sure how strikes benefited him ?
I seem to recall he got into legal trouble for taking money or something, and of course, lost his war against the government.