Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s activist army as well as the new leader will be on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s activist army as well as the new leader will be on trial in Oldham on December 3rd
The results of today’s election of committee chairs by LAB MPs highlights the massive gulf between the parliamentary party and the new leader. As George Eaton in the Staggers reports the outcome was a triumph for the right.
0
Comments
Many of the problems have been caused by several successive authoritarian governments from Thatcher onwards, each introducing more government powers and putting more restrictions on people's freedoms. I find it particularly frustrating as the current Conservative Party leadership have at times given lip-service to the idea of "freedom" while being as bad, if not worse, in introducing policies that restrict individual freedoms and increasing government powers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11976889/If-people-cant-protest-peacefully-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-protest-at-all.html
At the risk of being controversial, why should causing distress and anxiety be a criminal offence? (As opposed to bloody bad manners.)
There is too much legislation which is rushed in in response to a few cases and which seems to operate on the basis that the law - and only the law - should be used to get rid of anything bad in society. It's a fundamentally infantile view and a worrying trend, IMO.
And now have to go off to do some work. Will check in later.
I know you point out they have had problems in the past with seats like this as winning has been so easy they don't have certain structures in place to really fight it, but we're not seeing, yet, proof that electorally non-Corbynites will abandon the party or stay home have we? So lacking the organisation fight, at this point, doesn't seem like it will come to haunt them to me. They should treat it like a trial and fight it tooth and nail, but they can probably get away with it (granted I said this about Ed M's 35% strategy and was wrong).
There's always the example of Scotland I suppose, where the chickens all came home to roost at once for Labour
So really the only interesting results would be a UKIP win, which seems against the run of play at present on top of all the Labour strengths in the seat, or a Labour win so massive no-one could credibly use the size of victory to undermine Corbyn, but probably it will be comfortable enough to not worry the party elite, with only a little evidence for the old guard to grumble upon.
Good point - It will be interesting to see if Corbynites can make the transition from a force on social media to bums off seats and real knocking up. - Some will, but most will not IMO.
Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does seem notable that if you told people there will be violence and arrests (by a small minority, of course) at every single one of these types of events, some will defend the action as justified, some will deflect onto the disproportionate response of the police, some will go the route Dan has, but absolutely no one will be surprised that it happened in the first place. It is expected, and thus accepted, to a certain degree.
Very grown up questions from Angus Robertson. He is doing well in this enhanced role.
There was also a question which claimed that the UK has a larger Internet industry than any G20 country amounting to 12.4% of our GDP. Is this right? Seems remarkably high.
The whole idea of masks is to commit illegal acts with impunity. Police should be able to insist the identity of all marchers in any march can be immediately ascertained. That includes Burqhas and Niqabs when you are marching. Or no march.
Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does seem notable that if you told people there will be violence and arrests (by a small minority, of course) at every single one of these types of events, some will defend the action as justified, some will deflect onto the disproportionate response of the police, some will go the route Dan has, but absolutely no one will be surprised that it happened in the first place. It is expected, and thus accepted, to a certain degree.
Or you simply accept that some violence, damage and arrests will likely happen and that it's simply an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of the freedom to protest, which should be a fundamental part of our society and values.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
Plenty of other personal freedoms have unfortunate side-effects, that doesn't mean they should necessarily be curbed.
As I said, I didn't agree with his conclusions. I do, however, think that the frequency of damage and arrests may not need to be as inevitable as we accept it to be. Simply curbing rights in response would, I think, be disproportionate, and the level of violence, while unfortunate, is not at a level I think at this point measures should be taken, but I think there can come a point where certain behaviours are so expected we might end up not condemning them, and so exacerbate them. We already see people defend, indirectly or directly, or excuse such behaviours. I think in the absence of curbing rights, we need to just focus on continuing to make a big deal our of how unacceptable it is, so that it does not become more accepted than it already is. Every time it happens, and however small it is in proportion to the body of the protest, those that hijack it or abuse it, need to be condemned as seriously as the last time.
Someone shouting abuse at someone in the street is committing an offence and we are entitled to assume that the State will intervene when distress or alarm is caused. The problem is when we move away from that form of distress to people saying that someone saying something that they don't agree with and is not addressed at them is offensive and should be stopped. As a broad principle I disagree with this and really dislike legislation which seeks to have that effect.
OTOH I also recognise that some of that "free speech" might properly be regarded as incitement to violence or racial or religious hatred and that is wrong too. My own inclination would be to very narrowly define incitement giving due cognisance to the fact that we are all responsible for our individual actions regardless of what anyone else says but to accept that there are cases at the extremes where vulnerable or just plain stupid people can be led astray and those that do that should accept the consequences.
I don't see it as being that far from anonymity on the Internet, a freedom I've long taken for granted, even if that doesn't lead to "accountability" for my comments... even if that freedom leads to some nasty remarks and other unpleasantness.
Your identity would only matter if you committed a crime, as has always been the case, Otherwise your attendance at a march would be forgotten completely. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist of course, believing in some state within a state and disregarding the fact we have some of the best legal protections anywhere.
On topic, this by-election represents UKIPs best chance in a year to get themselves together and challenge Corbyn's Labour, who have done their best to alienate the WWC demographic of the seat. Can't see anything but a Labour win though, unless one of Galloway's people can split the Muslim vote in half.
I think the masks are very poor show in the context of a mass protest which traditionally has some inherent levels of violence. How would you feel if police covered up their badge numbers?
I hope you're joking?
It feels like something from a comedy sketch: "You can protest against poverty and bureaucracy once you've applied for your £25 protest pass which takes 4-6 to weeks to process".
I do not know whether the franchise agreement with Yum requires KFC franchisees to carry all menu items. It is entirely possible (even probable) it does not.
In which case, this is a staggeringly uninteresting story. "Yum franchisee attempts to boost profits by not carrying certain menu item".
As an aside, in the mid 1990s I had a girlfriend in Golders Green. We used to occasionally go the Burger King there (usually after the pub), and I always thought it interesting that it didn't carry any of the "with bacon" options. (The Burger King in question was also, almost certainly, a franchise.)
This country needs to pull it's collective thumb from it's arse and recognise and cherish the freedoms we have (or, as the downs' joke illustrated, had).
It feels like something from a comedy sketch: "You can protest against poverty and bureaucracy once you've applied for your £25 protest pass which takes 4-6 to weeks to process".
Good grief, what hand wringing.
This isn't the Jarrow marchers. This is people who have paid to travel to the event. What would an extra pound difference make, other than legitimising their otherwise awkward and costly presence with a commercial transaction.
Deliberately damaging property and inciting violence are rightly illegal, the police are there to ensure order and to take action against those who don't wish to behave.
The others wearing masks are the credulous idiots who believe the conspiracy theories about the 'state within a state stuff' and that they'll be executed on Dartmoor by Jason Bourne.
'Operation Treadstone' innit.
I dislike the "you've got nothing to hide" argument, especially since you're working under the assumption that the state will always be good when you're eroding a fundamental right. And, of course, others may have a different view of the state to yours!
Also, your identity in this post doesn't matter as you haven't committed a crime. Do you mind posting a name, address and photo of yourself? I'm certainly not willing to do so! We've had this argument over stop-and-search and ID cards and such like. If you're not doing anything wrong or illegal then you shouldn't have to prove anything to anybody.
I've long thought about the fact that the protests akin to the Tiananmen Square ones would be illegal in the UK. The crackdown would be obviously different, but it's still quite a sad situation when you think about it in those terms, as we tend to think of our governmental system as being so much better than the Chinese state and our populous far freer than people in China.
I do not see how anyone can argue that the UK does not have the best legal protections for the individual that have ever existed in any society, anywhere and at any time.
But hey, if you want to believe you're one of the names in the Blackbriar file, and that Matt Damon has just been handed the brown envelope with your black and white mugshot, that's your right I guess.
"Nothing to hide and nothing to fear" is the clarion call of creeping authoritarianism the world over. Anyone using it can take a very long walk off a short pier. I'm happy to stand behind them with a cattle prod to speed them along.
Odd weather. Overcast, pissing it down, yet far warmer than such a November day ought to be.
I've been on marches and never felt the need to cover up my identity. Those that did, normally had a reason to hide. They were wrong uns. Or paranoid.
Thanks for the idea!
I once accidentally got caught up in the middle of a protest in central London near Trafalgar Square, and I ended up being kettled for a relatively short period of time (30 minutes to an hour maybe?) and found it rather unpleasant. I can't imagine being trapped for hours.
There were certainly tears, as you suggest, when I locked the buggers in the shed for a few hours.
Well it worked in Athens....oh wait...the car dealers will be pleased though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1337623/Arsenal-boss-Arsene-Wenger-My-boys-snoods-suffer-bad-necks.html
And a definite crim: http://images.esellerpro.com/2152/I/842/13/lrgXS2602-3_1600.jpg
Like Ali G with death threats?
I can only imagine how you feel about Corbyn, being a vegetarian tee-totaller. Think of how that's going to effect people's choices, and its effect on pubs! Outrageous!
Muslim who threatened to behead UKIP candidate sentenced & only gets community order - BBC https://t.co/b7OBUtRrv2
I general, I'm very much pro freedom of speech, including freedom to give offense providing that doesn't tip into incitement to violence or lawbreaking (though incitement to hatred should be permitted - sanctions there should be social, not legal). However, that freedom must itself come with checks and balances, and it the right to associate and demonstrate is to be protected then I don't think it's unreasonable that those doing so are required to be identifiable.
FWIW, I'm very much in two minds about whether face covering should be permitted in public at all. On the one hand, it's not the sort of thing which the state has got involved in in the past and would represent an infringement of liberty. On the other, it seems that most who go in for that are either oppressed themselves or wish to seek to oppress others, or both.
Anybody who thinks there's one rule for muslims and one for the rest of us should take a moment to note that is a central plank of UKIP's argument, as iterated the other day in Israel by Paul Nuttall.
Such comments are disgraceful and repugnant, and it's shocking that someone should face the prospect of jail for that. What is freedom of speech if not the freedom to say things that go beyond what others consider the pail? Unless the individual in question was inciting people to kill others or commit similar crimes, it seems abhorrent, even for coming out with such horrendous views, that she might be imprisoned.
In the same way, I recall Frankie Boyle making a joke about a child with Down's[sp]. I find that repugnant, (likewise rape jokes) but it is not for the state to dictate which jokes are permissible.
It really, really doesn't sound like you're remotely "very much pro freedom of speech" or remotely pro-"liberty" to me. If anything, it sounds the opposite, like a normal right-wing authoritarian, who is happy with all speech as long as it's the right sort of speech from the right sort of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Act
I may walk down the street with my face covered if I want to. I may not use offensive words and behaviour with intent to cause a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, or assault any other person or damage someone else's property. If I attempt to do any of those things then it is the duty of the police to stop me and to put me before a court of law if I succeed.
The present argument seems to be occasioned because the police are trying to duck out of doing their duty. If Plod is incapable of, or, more likely, too incompetent to, do the job they are paid to do then that is an issue we should deal with. Perhaps we could start by looking at the vastly inflated salaries paid to senior police officers and their civilian hangers on.
Then there is the definitional problem: what is a 'face covering' and what is not? What is 'in public' ?
Then there is the issue of exclusion.
(The following relates to headscarves, not face coverings, but illustrates the exclusion point)
Turkey has a law banning headscarves from public institutions, including schools and universities. Few will have issues with the schools, but people at university are supposed to be adults. By banning them in universities, some women who might attend and get a higher education do not.
Is it right for them to be excluded, when they have made a choice to wear headscarves as adults?
If we go down the road of banning face coverings, we need to be aware of the likely consequences and problems it will cause. This is not a reason for not doing it; but it is a reason not to do it without considering the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey
(*) This was before 9/11 or the 7/7.
Been terribly messed about. Your a forward, no a back, no a forward, yes definitely a forward, now come and play for England in the backs....
There have been dozens of marches by anti-tory demonstrators since May 2015, without a word of protest on this site from even the most right wing poster. Your point is completely without merit or evidence.
And this is the point isn't it? Nobody's listening. All these marches are failing spectacularly to arouse popular sympathy in the slightest.
And so an escalation is required to get people to notice. And this 'mask' protest, with its amorphous aims and intimidatory tactics, represents that escalation.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V5jYS8eezmU/Sq4JeyzD2oI/AAAAAAAABgE/tln6o6EuhQk/s400/G20-Protests-G20-Protest--003.jpg
Bar the IRA, it all seemed fairly harmless - now it's gone way too far IMHO - it's intimidating, hiding identity by default and used to threaten a la Anonymous.
It really, really doesn't sound like you're remotely "very much pro freedom of speech" or remotely pro-"liberty" to me. If anything, it sounds the opposite, like a normal right-wing authoritarian, who is happy with all speech as long as it's the right sort of speech from the right sort of people.
Mr. PB, a little bit of history for you, the original Public Order Act (the one that banned the wearing of political uniforms in public and made the display of any written sign or use of language that was likely to cause a breach of the peace an offence) was brought in because of the activities of Mosley's Black Shirts.
The UK has a long tradition of updating its laws to take into account of current events. The arguments you expose could have been, and probably were, deployed against the introduction of the Public Order Act 1936. I am not saying that said arguments were wrong then or now, merely that changing the law to match current accepted thought (or at least thought accepted by the current political elite) is not new.
It really, really doesn't sound like you're remotely "very much pro freedom of speech" or remotely pro-"liberty" to me. If anything, it sounds the opposite, like a normal right-wing authoritarian, who is happy with all speech as long as it's the right sort of speech from the right sort of people.
Mr. PB, a little bit of history for you, the original Public Order Act (the one that banned the wearing of political uniforms in public and made the display of any written sign or use of language that was likely to cause a breach of the peace an offence) was brought in because of the activities of Mosley's Black Shirts.
The UK has a long tradition of updating its laws to take into account of current events. The arguments you expose could have been, and probably were, deployed against the introduction of the Public Order Act 1936. I am not saying that said arguments were wrong then or now, merely that changing the law to match current accepted thought (or at least thought accepted by the current political elite) is not new.
It's still a fairly warm topic over there.
Gaming news: apparently there's a load of Fallout 4 spoilers, including the ending, floating about, so do beware those if you're awaiting the game.
Speaking of spoilers, I hope we get the third series of Supermodels of SHIELD soon. Apparently it's rather good.
Edited extra bit: cheers for that extra information, Mr. Jessop.
I use CBS All Access a lot. They think I live in Utah.
The UK has a long tradition of updating its laws to take into account of current events. The arguments you expose could have been, and probably were, deployed against the introduction of the Public Order Act 1936. I am not saying that said arguments were wrong then or now, merely that changing the law to match current accepted thought (or at least thought accepted by the current political elite) is not new.Given that law was brought in to address a specific issue, one questions why it remained a law after 1950. It is a lot, lot, easier to take a freedom than to return one.
Ahmed was later arrested after the number was traced to his parents' home.
Sentencing him, Judge Stephen Earl said: "I'm still not convinced if I know who you are. A character I can most align you with is Walter Mitty."
He added that he did not think the remark had been serious and that it displayed a "lack of mature thought".
"I am satisfied that the threat that was made from your point of view was a throw away remark at the end of an agitated phone call," he said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-34731904
The controls over who uses your bandwidth are laughably weak. Your PC can be used for some seriously unpleasant activities without your knowledge.
I decided to cough up for a paid service after reading about this. Up to you though, obviously!
Currently writing serious, dramatic, warlike fantasy stuff. Which led, naturally, to me writing several one-liners for the cross-dressing knight...
John McDonnell tells Momentum rally “We are working *through* the Labour Party.."
https://t.co/TGyl48xhNe
I was interested in a picture of a rare breed of pig in Tuesday's Western Morning News. It's woolly like a sheep.
http://i.imgur.com/Un8idyh.jpg
Mangalitsa of Magalica - Hungarian, apparently.
Sadly, the best thing they could find to do with this rare breed was to turn it into the world's most expensive sausages (£37).
Their picture was advertising British Sausage Week.
http://www.angoragoats-n-more.com/Jasmine___Vanilla.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/10/heres-why-goats-have-those-freaky-eyes/ I was interested in a picture of a rare breed of pig in Tuesday's Western Morning News. It's woolly like a sheep.
http://i.imgur.com/Un8idyh.jpg
Mangalitsa of Magalica - Hungarian, apparently.
Sadly, the best thing they could find to do with this rare breed was to turn it into the world's most expensive sausages (£37).
Their picture was advertising British Sausage Week.