I'd disagree there, Spurf. You should come to Spain and see the shenanigans that go on here if you think the UK is bad.
I wasn't thinking of Spain NSIS I was thinking of Scandinavia, Germany, Holland, Belgium and possibly France. All of whom have a far more democratic form of Government than Britain has. Spain, Italy and Greece have a 'proud' tradition of quite open corruption which in many ways is better than the British hidden one. At least you know it's bent.
With the definite exception of France, yes possibly. But going back to DL's point, none of the countries you mentioned has individual citizens dictating government policy. That is most definitely anarchic. The closest I've ever seen to that, personally, was when I lived in the USA some years back. The town I lived in planned to build a new high school. This would necessitate a rise in local taxes. The people were given a straight yes or no vote as whether they wanted the new school, along with the accompanying rise in taxes. That was about the purest example of democracy I've ever personally witnessed. Still a long way from what DL was suggesting.
Surely the Mail and its ilk oppose the Government having access to data. Quite often the right and the left end up with similar policies despite starting from opposite views. I agree with you that we are only a sham democracy and thus to some extent the laws we have are not on a firm base, but we have very few laws that are not well-intentioned and I think for the most part they are applied fairly. I almost never believe in conspiracy theories because they usually require what is demonstrably a bunch of incompetents to take very effective, co-ordinated and secret action. UEFA are a case in point. Couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery but yet some believe that they somehow appoint referees who favour some particular team. They'd never manage it. In my first post on this thread I mentioned the change in reactions to drink driving. It may have been a better example than I thought because it was principally brought about by a government campaign which was either educational or brainwashing depending on your point of view. But I don't really agree with your views on PC. With current technology it is harder than ever for the Government to remain in control of the media and public opinion. The medium we are using for this discussion is a case in point. I don't believe that the FA or the Government could control it even they wished to. The reason there are strong reactions to the Hazard incident goes back not to PC but to a more fundamental issue: the difference between the rule of law and the rule of the mob. For supporters of the former Hazard is clearly in the wrong because he broke the rules and he had no standing to punish the ball boy whatever he had done. For the latter the ball boy broke the rules first and had what was coming to him. Its a very watered down version of the same issue as whether you can shoot a burglar you discover in your house and has the same polarising effect. For my part the code of law that I have the most faith in is that no-one should take away your freedom so your are 'innocent until proved guilty'. Since this right is moot if you've been shot dead I'm squarely in the rule of law camp. But do I believe that the law is perfect - no!
No part of my argument suggest a conspiracy theory, I agree it's unlikely for the reasons you give. You see we are fundamentally on the same side, I too believe in the rule of law, there are lawyers in my immediate family. What I am questioning is how the law makers are chosen and their agenda. You cannot ignore the fact that our cabinet consists of people from the same schools, that it is dominated by millionaires, they don't need a conspiracy they have had power for a 1000 years. As to whether these laws are applied fairly, whilst I have more confidence than most in our Judges the number of dubious convictions is alarming and the class bias of prosecution and sentencing is still evident. Laws are made by the powerful and their interests do not always coincide with the interests of the weak, it therefore becomes very important that you have a proper democratic system in place. In a country with an unelected house of Lords where bishops can make or break laws, where party politics dominates, where the vote collecting system favours the status quoe, where 70% of the land is owned by 3% of the people and has been for 1000 years it is unlikely to be fair to all.
Switzerland is arguably the most democratic country in Europe but fundamentally Spurf is right. Power is concentrated in the hands of the few, a very wealthy few that tend to have a history or family links to the aristocracy. PC is used by the right wing as propaganda against the left but the truth is its driven by the elite.
Agree we are mostly on the same side, Spurf. The first reason for law is definitely to protect the strong and their property.
