So lets be generous and accept that no Labour supporters were present at these demonstrations. To which political party would these socialist scumbags align? Here it would be Labour or the Greens. Is there an official Communist Party in the UK, or are we saying that the majority of them would just not vote? I can imagine Russell Brand as being just the type of person who would attend such a protest and we all know who he supported in the end!
Having friends amongst these communities, they are generally disassociated with the whole system. Some are hippies, some are very normal. The vast majority are pacifist and anti-capitalist, it is a small minority that is very easy to focus on. Especially to a press dominated by a group of rich old men, lacking any kind of diversity. They belong to no party and see it as pointless to even engage in the process. But as you said, you 'imagine' and I think you are confusing green and labour supporters with people who are against the conservatives.
I have been to rallies and stayed at a tree protest site. I have seen the police use tactics in that disgust me as much as the desecration of war memorials. A state that can sanction an undercover operation that affects the life of an innocent as has happened, with the fathering of children by undercover officers who have subsequently vanished, also has issues. Dirty tactics by the police/state for political purpose isn't something new, it has been going on forever. Look at all the corruption involved in Hillsborough, the miners strike, no convictions for bankers/press hackers and now, potentially, the Bradford fire.
Personally, I think some people are scum bags no matter their political persuasion. It just seems it is those that can afford a good lawyer or are politically connected that don't go to prison.
But unless each and everyone of them was interviewed, we just don't know. I hope there is a thorough analysis of social media to discover how so many troops were rallied so quickly. Who arranged this? FWIW this is what the International Business Times had to say:-
"The protesters appear to be a mixed group of Labour supporters, Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters and students. Opposing rallies by Britain’s far-right, controversial English Defense League and their rival Unite Against Fascism were held on Saturday in London, but it is unclear if elements of either rally have melded with the anti-Tory demonstrations."
that just sounds like lazy reporting to me. "Labour lost the election so it must their supporters that are doing it" The anarchists and anti-capitalists don't engage with party politics for the most part.
Bit of a coincidence they decided to have a go just one day after the election result then isn't it....
In the days leading up to the General Election a group known as the People's Assembly started an event on Facebook for yesterday stating that if David Cameron failed to secure a majority and had not left Downing Street by then, they would protest there to demand that he stepped down, preemptively accusing Cameron of staging a coup and that they would stop it (ironically, deposing a man who is rightfully Prime Minister through organised action could be described as a coup itself).
Alas Thursday came and went and the event's organisers quietly rearranged the protest as Cameron had indeed secured a majority, however the attendees of the event were likely amongst those who turned up yesterday as evidenced by posts on the Facebook event after its true purpose became void.
The People's Assembly is an astroturf lobbying group backed by notable and rich trade unionists and Labour and Green politicians and activists, as well as some luvvies for good measure. They effectively help organise direct action for the more extreme wing of left-wing activists so the Labour Party can stay at arm's length from then, precisely because of this kind of thing.
These protests have nothing to do with the Labour Party but whoever is the People's Assembly's Facebook admin was incredibly irresponsible by publishing false information prior to polling day and whipping up its more loony supporters into a frenzy then deciding to abandon all responsibility for the event but without attempting to dissuade people from an illegal and destructive demonstration. Much like winding up a pack of hungry dogs then letting them loose in a park. I imagine most people who turned up are just pissed off and looking for an excuse to cause trouble. It cannot in any way be described as a legitimate or justified demonstration.
I don't think a one-size fits all policy can work at all. What a single out-of-work father of four in West London needs in terms of both money and support is very different to what a disabled pensioner in Sunderland needs. This sort of thing really needs to be handled by councils or at least give them a lot more autonomy.
Also, people, you can't just flag posts just because you disagree with someone's opinion, please don't waste any more of the mods' time or this thread will just be shut, which none of us really want now we're getting some decent discussion.
It is perfectly ok to flag a post that contains a link to a racist site. Don't link to that site again. You have been warned now.
The link itself contained no racist material and whatever your opinion of the website, you are not in a position to demand what is and isn't OK to link to on this site. I will ignore your warning because it isn't legitimate, stop trying to get this thread closed.
For the benefit of other posters it is perfectly fine to open the article I posted earlier, I'll allow you to form your own opinion of it but I guarantee it contains no offensive material.
And does it have any time scales, so someone could get 26k per annum for doing nothing forever
Someone "gets" as much as they need until and unless their circumstances change and they no longer need it. That's what social justice is.
Surely that encourages welfare to become a lifestyle choice rather than assistance.
No. Because the system should provide what you "need", not what you "want". It's a safety blanket, not a replacement for income. I am not suggesting, for instance, that someone receiving benefits would have a surplus at the end of each month. I *am* suggesting that someone on benefits who finds themselves in a position to move off benefits and into work should then be encouraged, enabled and incentivised to earn as much as possible. In that way, no-one would see "being on benefits" as a "lifestyle choice".
A couple of things to bear in mind.
1. The *majority* of people on benefits are in work. Therefore, making a significant, demonstrable, honest and full contribution to society.
2. The maximum figure we're talking about is to cover all the expenses of a benefits claimant. That is, food, clothing, heating, accommodation, travel expenses, etc. It is roughly the same amount as MPs can re-claim in mortgage subsidy on a second home.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
But you obviously can't tailor policy according to each and every individuals specific needs. What very often happens when somebody is particularly hard hit because of a change in one policy, is that they very often fall into another bracket in another benefit which offsets their losses. But of course this sort of thing doesn't get mentioned in the scaremongering press. It's never going to be a completely fair system and some people are always going to feel hard done by, whilst others laugh all the way to the bank.
I think you can though. I agree with Red_in_SE8 when he says that the circumstances between to individuals circumstances and needs will be very different.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
But you obviously can't tailor policy according to each and every individuals specific needs.
That's exactly what the Benefits' Dept does.
What very often happens when somebody is particularly hard hit because of a change in one policy, is that they very often fall into another bracket in another benefit which offsets their losses. But of course this sort of thing doesn't get mentioned in the scaremongering press. It's never going to be a completely fair system and some people are always going to feel hard done by, whilst others laugh all the way to the bank.
And you personally contribute how much to this,exactly?
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
But you obviously can't tailor policy according to each and every individuals specific needs.
That's exactly what the Benefits' Dept does.
What very often happens when somebody is particularly hard hit because of a change in one policy, is that they very often fall into another bracket in another benefit which offsets their losses. But of course this sort of thing doesn't get mentioned in the scaremongering press. It's never going to be a completely fair system and some people are always going to feel hard done by, whilst others laugh all the way to the bank.
And you personally contribute how much to this,exactly?
Many thousands of pounds this tax year, but it's not your business really is it!
We seem to be getting caught up in a cycle of discussion around who is worthy for help and I expect this to come into sharp focus over the next few months. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some pisstakers out there. None, and they need sorting out.
But these are relatively few and far between and, I am speaking here as a good friend of someone in charge of benefit fraud investigation locally, in EVERY case they claim benefit as part of a wider criminal lifestyle. That might include benefit fraud itself because they are working cash in hand or not declaring cohabitation but more often than not it's connected with other crimes. The simple truth is that they would struggle to maintain the lifestyle they desire if they relied on the benefit aspect itself.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Those that can work should work. Those cheating either benefits or tax should feel the full force of the law. Those in genuine need through either being out of work and genuinely unable to find work or through disability or sickness should be looked after and not demonised. This is a great and compassionate country and we do ourselves great disservice by not recognising the difference between the groups mentioned above.
I don't think any Tory would disagree with you, so what are we arguing about?
I agree. I know many Tories. Even some nice ones ;0). What I'm saying is that a one size fits all policy harms a good many genuine claimants as it sanctions those with suspect claims. The bedroom tax is a fine example. Many disabled people forced to pay when the "spare" room was genuinely needed to keep equipment and to accommodate carers. Not just Tory policy. I think the proposed mansion tax from labour was just as blunt an instrument. It's sound bite politics and does us as a nation little credit.
But you obviously can't tailor policy according to each and every individuals specific needs.
That's exactly what the Benefits' Dept does.
What very often happens when somebody is particularly hard hit because of a change in one policy, is that they very often fall into another bracket in another benefit which offsets their losses. But of course this sort of thing doesn't get mentioned in the scaremongering press. It's never going to be a completely fair system and some people are always going to feel hard done by, whilst others laugh all the way to the bank.
And you personally contribute how much to this,exactly?
Many thousands of pounds this tax year, but it's not your business really is it!
Fair dos,but when you express opinions on a public forum - and especially in the candid and bombastic way you have - it's everybody's business...
Apparently the Torys are against the right to education, the right to freedom of expression (Miliband wanted to make it a crime to criticise Islam!!) and the right to life.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
thank god labour supporters never campaign using fear and scaremongering (!!)
I sent a picture of that war memorial with the graffiti on it to a bunch of mates on WhatsApp earlier - they're mostly left leaning/Labour supporters. One of them (who only arrived in this country 3 years ago from DR Congo) replied with "Well, it is a free country I guess"
Thats the sort of shite being spouted at the moment by some on the left. How liberal.
Help me out here, just read a Labour blog editor saying what Labour need to do to move forward.They need to win back trust on the economy, be prudent with public money, control spending, keep taxes to a minimum,take action on welfare, and get people back in work.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
thank god labour supporters never campaign using fear and scaremongering (!!)
These are the main chapters of the Human Rights Act, which Cameron and Gove are looking to abolish.
do you agree we need these rights? Or do you think they should be scrapped?
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Help me out here, just read a Labour blog editor saying what Labour need to do to move forward.They need to win back trust on the economy, be prudent with public money, control spending, keep taxes to a minimum,take action on welfare, and get people back in work.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
thank god labour supporters never campaign using fear and scaremongering (!!)
These are the main chapters of the Human Rights Act, which Cameron and Gove are looking to abolish.
do you agree we need these rights? Or do you think they should be scrapped?
That article doesn't exactly go into much detail but the mention on no voting rights for prisoners is spot on.
I dont see any mention of him or his government being opposed to what you've listed.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Comments
Alas Thursday came and went and the event's organisers quietly rearranged the protest as Cameron had indeed secured a majority, however the attendees of the event were likely amongst those who turned up yesterday as evidenced by posts on the Facebook event after its true purpose became void.
The People's Assembly is an astroturf lobbying group backed by notable and rich trade unionists and Labour and Green politicians and activists, as well as some luvvies for good measure. They effectively help organise direct action for the more extreme wing of left-wing activists so the Labour Party can stay at arm's length from then, precisely because of this kind of thing.
These protests have nothing to do with the Labour Party but whoever is the People's Assembly's Facebook admin was incredibly irresponsible by publishing false information prior to polling day and whipping up its more loony supporters into a frenzy then deciding to abandon all responsibility for the event but without attempting to dissuade people from an illegal and destructive demonstration. Much like winding up a pack of hungry dogs then letting them loose in a park. I imagine most people who turned up are just pissed off and looking for an excuse to cause trouble. It cannot in any way be described as a legitimate or justified demonstration.
For the benefit of other posters it is perfectly fine to open the article I posted earlier, I'll allow you to form your own opinion of it but I guarantee it contains no offensive material.
A couple of things to bear in mind.
1. The *majority* of people on benefits are in work. Therefore, making a significant, demonstrable, honest and full contribution to society.
2. The maximum figure we're talking about is to cover all the expenses of a benefits claimant. That is, food, clothing, heating, accommodation, travel expenses, etc. It is roughly the same amount as MPs can re-claim in mortgage subsidy on a second home.
But these are relatively few and far between and, I am speaking here as a good friend of someone in charge of benefit fraud investigation locally, in EVERY case they claim benefit as part of a wider criminal lifestyle. That might include benefit fraud itself because they are working cash in hand or not declaring cohabitation but more often than not it's connected with other crimes. The simple truth is that they would struggle to maintain the lifestyle they desire if they relied on the benefit aspect itself.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Don't worry,I'm done now.
I've heard it all from the left now.
Is that err, conservatism ?
do you agree we need these rights? Or do you think they should be scrapped?
lets all be nice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11133604/Scrap-Human-Rights-Act-and-limit-European-migration-says-Prime-Minister.html
I dont see any mention of him or his government being opposed to what you've listed.