Off Topic Political Debate

I think the police have clearly identifiable numbers on their uniforms.

He clearly stated we should have intolerance for those operating outside of the law, not against those simply demonstrating.

 

Democracy - Right to vote and accept the rule of the democratically elected government yes..
Freedom of speech - Right to express ones views in a non violent non threatening manner not to cause distress to others yes

Right to express alternate views to democratically elected government whilst cowardly masked and attacking / intimidating people and property no I'm not in favor of that any more than I'm in favor of a vote where 2% of the workforce vote for a strike being able to stop a business or secondary non associated businesses being able to ship in protesters.

 

This was after the terrible murder of that man a couple of years back:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief

 

ok..... agreed.....

But you did make sweeping statements in your original post...

 

The fact that the Guardian makes a whole article on one officer not showing identification shows how rare an occurrence it is.

In contrast there are thousands of people who deliberately dress in such a way that makes it difficult to identify lawbreakers amongst them, some of them are useless scum.

Did anyone see David Gilmour on The Andrew Marr show last week playing down the actions of his imbecile, Cambridge educated son Charlie, who was jailed for violent disorder during the tuition fees protest after swinging from a union flag on the Cenotaph.

They should have made him serve more than 4 months of his 16 month sentence.

 

Not really, I was pretty clear that I was referring to those working outside the law, then went on to detail what I don't accept as being British, if we turn into a communist or Islamic state I'll be off. I will not be burning police cars or throwing stones.

 

They should have sent young Charlie to camp bastion... he might have gained a bit of respect there....

 

Or be forced to listen to nothing but his father's records for the rest of his life.

 

Many of these 'useless scum' may be sons and daughters. I think we need to be careful about sweeping statements about people who hold different views from our own. After all they are generally all products of our society.

I don't support their behaviour in any way but I can respect that many of these young people have views that they have come to due to their life circumstances.

Better to ask why they feel so alienated from the mainstream political system....

 

As this thread so perfectly demonstrates, resorting to stereotypes devalues most arguments. We are all Watford fans, therefore....clearly it has no impact on our world views. I, for one, am relieved!

 

Obviously these 'useless scum' are sons and daughters of somebody. Nobody minds them holding different views from the mainstream. I was referring to those breaking the law by carrying weapons, smashing up premises and assaulting police officers. If they are a product of our society maybe we have been too tolerant of their unsocial behaviour in the past.

Surely even you cannot find any excuse for little rich kid Charlie's shocking action?

 

I am a little perplexed as to why you say even you ? Or am I too being put in the 'same' category?

I actually don't know and have not followed any of the detail of that story so cant fairly comment.

Of course a much more important question is what causes people and they are mainly 'young' people to act in this way. Is it possible to consider that as opposed to make swinging judgments.....

 

The answer or at least one of the major ones is simple. It's a lack of discipline,lack of maturity, lack of respect and lack of any serious consequence for what is unacceptable behavior.

 

York, I am certainly not putting you in the same category as that imbecile Charlie Gilmour who decided it would be a good idea to show huge disrespect to the fallen. My point is the usual excuses for loutish behaviour is normally down to some kind of social exclusion. Hardly applicable for this rich berk.

 

Hi father was a pop star what do we expect

 

I did not know what he had done.... I in no way condone it...... at all....

 

Sorry to come back to this post but some of the comments here do not bare any resemblance to so called 'British Values', in fact I would place them alongside those of some tinpot dictatorship such as Pinochets. What do you mean by 'kicking the lower echelons of society back across the Mediterranean' ? Is this alluding to what I think it is - if so such thoughts have no place in our society. Are you also presuming here that 'socialism' is essentially a non British thing ? Are you not forgetting that the first attempts to form trade unions or cooperative movements were in Britain ? Or that the first really political texts advocating collective ownership came from Britain (the Diggers) ? I am sure that you probably would have thought also that the first suffragettes were anarchists and therefore 'non British'. British history has been full of protest, and full of lack of respect for authority, from Magna Carta, through to Wat Tyler and later Emily Pankhurst - all were illegal at the time.

 

Are you condoning illegal behaviour on the streets of present day London?

 

I am not condoning anything but simply saying in response to Aberdeen that it cannot be dismissed as un British activity in the way he has done - this smacks of McCarthyism. Likewise it cannot be linked to Socialism, to immigration or even to real Anarchism. At the end of the day those engaged in violence are simply groups of young people out looking for violence - a phenomenon which is, unfortunately, very 'British'.

 

But, I will give you a direct answer to a direct question here. If an act did not involve violence, (either physical or psychological), and was condemned only by the law of the land but nonetheless ran counter to eg. my religious beliefs - if an act were also not being performed for my own advancement but for that of someone else who was deserving then I can conceive of situations in which I could advocate breaking the law - if it were my duty as a Christian to do so. I would certainly give sanctuary to those deserving of asylum regardless of what the law said. Similarly if self employed I could imagine withholding those of my taxes which are spent on arms. If you are paying your taxes to a government which is engaged in illegal war (as in Iraq) then you are the one responsible for that war. So those are 2 cases in which I could advocate breaking the law - so I guess there must be others.