I don't know about you...
...but those Anonymous Masks make me want to smash the noses of the people wearing them. They are insufferable. Only teenagers think it makes them look rebellious.
London cops made 11 arrests last night as thousands of supporters of the hacktivist group Anonymous led protests outside Buckingham Palace. The Register had a vulture on the ground, watching as the group of about 1,000 masked “Anons” marched from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square, before bursting through a police cordon …
"Can I just point out that the Anonymous mask image is actually owned by Time warner and they are paid a fee for each mask that is sold."
It's worse than that, and they apparently know this to be true:
I'm afraid an idea is not as bulletproof as you seem to believe, as the braincells that are fused together in the minds of people who are receptive to such an idea can easily be shattered by a passing bullet. Shatter enough braincells, and any idea can be easily extinguished.
There's nothing all that bad about communism. The real world implementations at a state level that we've seen so far haven't worked all that well. It's worked quite well on a small scale in many places around the world. The problem isn't communism, or even the idea of communism. The problem is that it almost invariably ends up with some power mad loon in charge.
"There's nothing all that bad about communism...." Seriously? You must have missed the last century of history then.
".....The real world implementations at a state level that we've seen so far haven't worked all that well...." Massive understatement! The big, BIG problem with Communism, which is simply Socialism in it's purest form, is that it does not allow any form of development, it simply leads to stagnation. Without a means of valuing product through a financial system how do you both steer demand and trade with other countries? And that's before we get round to the fact that Communism, as the original poster mentioned, does not take into account human nature. Capitalism and democracy are pretty poor systems but they allow advancement and development and at least attempt at equal opportunities, BECAUSE it takes into account human nature, making them the best compromise yet.
".....The problem isn't communism, or even the idea of communism....." Complete cobblers! The simple example is how the Soviet Union failed to keep pace with developments in the West, leading to their eventual collapse. The so-called "Communist" system in China is anything but Communist, except for the tyrannical control and repression of freedoms. Communist China needed the Capitalist West as a trading partner to climb out of the immense lag in development. Pure Communism is an ivory tower myth, it almost always degenerates into failure and collapse or resorts to Capitalist systems for survival.
".....The problem is that it almost invariably ends up with some power mad loon in charge......" Which is exactly what the original poster said - Communism requires the "pure of heart", entrusting full control to a small group of people on the basis they will only ever make the correct decisions for the benefit of all, and leaves the majority with no means of removing the decision makers if they get it wrong or get greedy. Communism appeals through it's almost religious outlook of the inherent good of people, hence its failure. Capitalism and democracy work better because they take human nature into account. If you really want to continue insisting there is nothing wrong with Communism then I suggest you go talk to some East Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians or Russians, the majority of whom will quite happily tell you how stupid you sound.
"Pure Communism is an ivory tower myth, it almost always degenerates into failure and collapse or resorts to Capitalist systems for survival."
Ivory tower? Yes.
"almost always degenerates". Yes, "almost always", that was my point. As for your other points, I already addressed them if you read what I wrote.
I've been around the world a fair bit and I can say with a great deal of certainty that Communism sucks as much as democracy but at least in most democracies people have more freedoms.
By the way: I note that the "Million Man March" didn't have a million, if 1000 people were in London and 450 other locations had the same (I doubt they did) then it was a 450,000 man march. Yes this is big but not representative in democratic terms. If a million marched on London I would be more impressed.
When it comes to this uprising, yes things aren't very even and British & American politics is something of a farce, but I don't like the alternatives. So far the only alternative I have seen proposed is anarchy, if Brand actually wanted to lend his weight to this he would be either proposing some alternate structure or endorsing someones proposal. But as it stands I see no 'structure' under which society can live effectively and democratically. People are suggesting technological solutions, but these create an even greater divide because the savvy become the elite instead of populus.
Well, we can give you a uniform, a couple of days training, a stick and a bit of gaffa tape to cover your badge number and you can smash all the noses you want.
The thing you aren't understanding is that this is called "democracy" and "liberty" and you wanting to use violence to get your way is exactly what these people are standing against.
Live with it.
"...but those Anonymous Masks make me want to smash the noses of the people wearing them"
For me the laugh is on them. Fawkes wanted to destroy parliament in order to return the UK to the dictatorial catholic fold. Anyone who is remotely stupid enough to adopt such a symbol to characterise a rebellion has either a lack of cultural awareness or has been consuming too many Nepalese Temple Balls. Or both, and possibly a little more. They remind me of the New Romantics in the 1980s, so adroitly satirised by the junior police officers in Ashes to Ashes, and so many other fools that have over the centuries adopted silly clothing to signify their membership of a Cause.
Russell Bland - you're not Che Guevara you tosser.
Of course not, and he's got some weird ideas at times too. But every so often he does come up with a gem, like in that Paxman interview - even Paxman said afterwards that there were bits he actually agreed with. He's a bit light on follow through, but I think someone like him will at least keep you thinking. Or drinking :).
Why is it insane?
I'm with him. I've not voted in a general election since 1997. This is not apathy, or laziness, or some mis-guided idea that my vote is worthless - I value my vote highly, and absolutely refuse to cast it for someone just because they are not someone else, or for any other reason than that they (or, at a stretch, their party) are worthy of my vote.
Give me a candidate worthy of my vote, and I will vote again. Until then, fuck 'em all, and the horses they rode in on.
We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd.
It's democracy in action! Put your freedom to the test.
Actually the democracy part means that you can stand as a third option. No doubt your ideas will be perfect and everyone will vote for you. Then you have to implement them, and that's when reality will bite you.
The current system is far from perfect, but it has arisen through practice, not just some paper/mind-based theory.
"Actually the democracy part means that you can stand as a third option. No doubt your ideas will be perfect and everyone will vote for you. Then you have to implement them, and that's when reality will bite you."
My ideas are far from perfect, and I would be lousy in politics.
"The current system is far from perfect"
The problem is not the system, per se. It is the people who generally rise to power in our political system. Hence my tongue-in-cheek quote from a South Park episode (maybe I should have included the joke icon to make it clear). It is captured in another line from that episode:
"But Stan, don't you know, it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."
I do think there is another reason for this: Most people do not understand fully what they are voting for. Sometimes this is down to the voter (e.g. they are just voting for Party X because their parents did or they were too lazy to actually look into the issues), sometimes it is down to the politicians not giving enough information to make an informed decision. The politicians (from all parties) also tend to do as much work trying to discredit their opposition as setting out their policies (I am being generous, here).
And finally, the bottom line is that politicians do not do after the election what they said they would do before it. This is, I believe, most people's biggest gripe. They may say that they couldn't, but they should not be making promises they cannot keep. So how can we, the general public, the voters, make an informed decision when the politicians will not do most of what they say anyway?
"Actually the democracy part means that you can stand as a third option. No doubt your ideas will be perfect and everyone will vote for you"
The "theory of democracy" part means that you, me and anyone else can stand as a third option.
The "practice of democracy" part means that you, me and anyone else can only get elected as a third option if we are multi-millionaires willing to bankroll our own campaign, or find some multi-millionaires willing to support our campaign*. Perfect ideas don't matter if those ideas can't be heard, and the ideas can't be heard above everyone else's shouting. Not to mention that the current incumbents will lie through their teeth about their own proposals and paint us as monsters. Not to mention that why should people believe us if all the politicians they've ever known were liars?
"Then you have to implement them, and that's when reality will bite you."
In the miracle case of not only getting elected but getting enough clout and following to propose laws and have backing for them, then we have to implement them and all the special interests will come out of the woodwork pleading exceptions. More likely than not these will form a pretty good subset with the people who have financed you and are now pleading special treatment.
Thanks but no thanks, I'd much rather have the "none of the above" option, combined with a framework that allows citizens to propose / amend their own laws through referendum (as in Switzerland for example)
*Said financiers of course will more likely than not dictate or at least influence policy direction or withdraw future funding.
So what you're basically saying is you want a change but can't be bothered to get off your arse and make an attempt at changing things because it's too much hard work for ickle you, so instead you'll just throw childish tantrums and break stuff.
What a load of cobblers.
The free press in the West are gagging for stories, they would love the opportunity to publicise a "third way" that actually was a third way. Watch some of the online vids on the London march and you'll see the journos onscreen often outnumber the protesters! There are plenty of options for free media coverage outside of traditional print and TV, including Twatter, Faecesbook, etc., etc. Actual registration (the deposit) for a local election probably costs less than the average Anonyputz wastes every year on drugs, booze, and trendy clothing (note how many of the "protesters" in the failed MillionMaskMarch are young trendy types in branded gear). Seriously, you are just pathetic to make that claim Grow a pair or STFU.
Welcome back to normality Matt :)
What I am NOT doing is throwing stuff. I am simply suggesting alternative rules for a game that is not rigged (or less rigged at least), then maybe I would be interested in playing. And it seems to me that in agreeing to the 'none of the above', that you also support changing the rules of the game. The party I do support with my vote and my money is one that explicitly campaigns on changing the rules of the political game.
I have no interest in playing a game that I know to be rigged against me (same reason I don't buy lottery tickets). Doing hard work that I know will not lead to a desired outcome is stupid. So if you want to call making public suggestions instead of directly campaigning / standing for election "lazy", please yourself, but for me, better lazy than stupid anyway.
"Welcome back to normality Matt :)...." Sorry, but I really don't think your version of "normality" is anywhere I want to be.
".....I am simply suggesting alternative rules for a game that is not rigged (or less rigged at least), then maybe I would be interested in playing....." Being intesrested in "playing" with Communism is the equivalent of suicide.
"....And it seems to me that in agreeing to the 'none of the above', that you also support changing the rules of the game...." Wrong. My agreeing with the "none of the above" is simply agreeing that you and everyone else should have a right to show their disagreement, not that I actually don't happily vote for one of the options presented.
".....The party I do support with my vote and my money is one that explicitly campaigns on changing the rules of the political game." I support your right to do so absolutely, just as I would support your right to wear a pink tutu in a blizzard if you want, but you are making the mistake of assuming my support for your right to what I consider a stupid choice is agreement with your choice. And, to be brutally honest, the other reason I am happy to let you air your choice is because I am confident it is a minority view. One of the truths about democracy is you know it's working when the extremes of Left and/or Right are moaning about how it isn't letting them over-rule the majority.
" I value my vote highly, and absolutely refuse to cast it for someone just because they are not someone else, or for any other reason than that they (or, at a stretch, their party) are worthy of my vote."
When will we finally get a "None of the above" that is legally enforced? ie if "None of the above" is the most popular option, fresh elections are held with new candidates (old candidates barred from standing)
"....When will we finally get a "None of the above" that is legally enforced? ie if "None of the above" is the most popular option, fresh elections are held with new candidates (old candidates barred from standing)" Blimey, a suggestion from Jimbo I can actually agree with! The skies must be falling.....
"At least turn up to the polling station and spoil your ballot, otherwise you're no different from everyone sat on their arses at home who are too lazy to vote."
Indeed, as I have on occasion done. We after all owe it to our forebears, who over centuries of wars (particularly in the period between 1939 and 1945 [VE and then VJ day in the case of the forgotten armies]) contributed to what eventually became a universal franchise.
What we need is a "none of the above" box on the ballot.
With that i predict turnout climbing over 80%, with "none of the above" being the clear winner.
I happen to be fortunate that for the last several election's I've had an MP worth voting for, that regular turns up to work for his constituants (not lobbying firms, etc.), asks well thought through and researched questions both in the house and on committee, and holds regular surgerys, despite his current ill health, damn shame about the other 600+ NON-bench warmers.
"Brand's an appealing guy and he's correctly identified the problem, but then so has everyone else. His solution, however, is insane"
Brand looks more like an idiot to me (especially for his answerphone message) not least for his suggestion WRT voting. However, Webb's diagnosis of our country being a revolutionary country is not only misplaced, but also overlooks something contained in the very anti monarchy revolution to which he points; revolutions are bloody affairs, and have been since the French one. The old order is not replaced by anything ethically better, but by creatures of opportunity who slaughter, torture and imprison whomsoever they wish (after the October Revolution which was snatched from the Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks, monks and nuns were detained whilst murderers, thieves and rapists were released, because their crimes were surely the fault of capitalist society). The point about not having a dictatorship of the proletariat is that you can vote the bastards out, although in Blair's case the halo had evidently vaporised with the first million that he made, and yet he was returned 3 x.
Oh yes, indeed; I can hear the shouts of 'it will be better when we have the next revolution, we can do this properly'. That's what the proponents of every religion say, from Islam to Marxism.
"Not always. See the Carnation revolution for one. Granted, I do agree with you about the opportunists ...
"There goes the mob... I must follow them, for I am their leader.""
I was talking this through a couple of years back with a Portuguese acquaintance. We moved from talking of Portugal as England's oldest ally to what happened there, but was it truly a revolution? What is a revolution?
More modern case studies of revolution can be found in the middle east, and they are a warning, as is our past.
We're gradualists in this country, and small wonder. Our two civil wars/revolution spilled much blood, set father and son against one another, mother and son, brothers, daughters... ...one of the reasons why we do not have a food foraging tradition is that these wars marked the last times we had cities under siege, with people eating snails, rats, horse and all of the other delicacies beloved of 'continentals' but mostly not us.
I post on ARRSE.co.uk, where a few years back an ugly rumour began circulating that the New Labour government had begun the process of getting soldiers to sign 'loyalty' documents. This was some time before Blair was booted, because they could see that this wealthy man had been doing things for which they had no mandate and had earned the ire of the electorate.
As the now sadly defunct Clann Zú observed through one of the passionate (brief) interviewees in their song The sailor who fell from grace with the sea "The richest people in the world they are less than 2,000 people, they're controlling 6 billion people on this planet, this planet belongs to all of us.". They omit to say that not all of the people on the planet are controlled by the few, that the few are greater in number, that there is a pyramidal structure of what amount to commercial civil servants who determine what happens [...]. Clann Zú's wild and strange music used to be freely available from http://clannzu.com/ but someone in Motown appears to own the site and is using it in pursuit of regenerating the one time powerhouse of the USA. How ironic that is, from so many perspectives. It tells a story that you will not hear in many headlines.
This is all that I can find of them now: http://web.archive.org/web/20071014062538/http://clannzu.com/
Gone, just like Abunai! whose different brand of strangeness is still available at their site: http://www.abunai.com/ Get it whilst it is still there and look at their photographs only when you've heard the music, which is a modernish variety of space rock. They look like bloody social workers!
The police failed at being in control all evening, the crowd just did what they wanted with impunity until the end of the night when the groups had split.
From what I saw, the police had tried talking to who they thought the organisers were to try and get some control but with the de-centralised nature of this kind of protest, they were unable to do so. So the police had no idea what direction the crowd would go or when. There were about 1500 to 2000 protesters so when they chose to walk through a police line, they just did it. Often the moves were just spontaneous decisions and the crowd just followed.
One guy wheeled a speaker around playing some loud loud music which had a pied piper effect on some followers. On the Mall they had three police vans blocking the road and about 5 cops as they didn't expect the sudden movement in that direction. Barriers both sides of the road and a sergeant shouted that no one goes beyond his 5 man line or they get arrested, whereby someone just opened a section of barrier and everyone walked around them laughing while they maintained their line looking like lemons.
The police looked so lost and helpless all night that one can only speculate that they did not expect so many, as well as having the issue of no organiser to harass in to moving how the police wanted them to move.
"The police looked so lost and helpless all night that one can only speculate that they did not expect so many"
This began somewhere between 1997 and 2010; you may remember some Muslim demonstrators actually chasing coppers down London streets, threatening them with violence.
You may find pleasure in the impotence of the police, relatively leaderless and without tactics and other resources, but during the riots and across the country innocent people were made to suffer by people who refused to obey the laws that protect people in this country. It would be a shock to such demonstrators if those who suffered retaliated in kind, yet this fate awaited them if they crossed Sikh lines in west London; they had unsheathed ceremonial swords and were prepared to use them, and that along with the use of a firearm by at least one set of rioters says enough for me.
why am i not surprised the met tried to find "central command" for what was effectively a bunch of anarchists
even when SOCA required "permission" to demonstrate, it wasn't that organised (see Mark Thomas's Seriously Organised Criminal video for some LOL entertainment on this)
Yeah, they don't really seem to know exactly what they are protesting about other than "The Man" in general. Russell Brand's recent political musings are a little sixth form in nature, albeit very eloquent. However, he does make a good point that the mainstream parties don't really strike a chord with millions of people in this country.
Maybe that is what is at the root of this type of protests, a generation that seem to be disenfranchised and want some kind of change, but they don't know exactly what?
There has been virtually NO coverage of this by the UK media except attempts to portray the whole protest as a bunch of violent idiots because of a few mindless pillocks launching fireworks at Buckingham Palace.
And it's not what they're protesting "for", it's what they're protesting against (which has been clearly demonstrated by the media establishment supporting the status quo).
"And it's not what they're protesting "for", it's what they're protesting against (which has been clearly demonstrated by the media establishment supporting the status quo)."
'Oh man, heavy-heavy, we don't like the compromise the adults have reached and want to tear everything down, even though we are a minority group and hold ideas that most people find risible. Shit man, we gonna do some real heavy shit tonite man.'
And it's not what they're protesting "for", it's what they're protesting against
If you don't have a for, against is rather pointless. Tear down what you will: if you don't have something ready to replace it, someone else will, and you'll like the replacement even less.
"but each of those masks has an embedded RFID tag."
I understand that the new police night sticks now on general issue have a special implant device; a quick tap on the back of the neck and you're in their database forever, DNA, blood, location, where you've been, where you're going, whom you sleep with, the whole bit. The process is made possible by a very powerful, instant anaesthetic which precedes the implantation process and also erases memory for the fraction of a second during which the transaction takes place, and they even debit your bank account for it! Anon no more; all your base are mine! ;-)
...as a relatively reactionary 63-yr old, who has always had a distaste for Labour because of their interfering, controlling, nannying ethos, I must say that there is much in this protest with which I profoundly agree:-
"Cull The Tories" I disagree with this one:- why stop there? Cull the lot of 'em...
"Remember who your enemies are: billionaires who own banks and corporations who corrupt politicians who enslave the people in injustice," Totally agree:- who with more than a single number IQ could not?
"The government doesn't listen to us. Big business doesn't listen. We're here to protest against greed and call for a fairer world." Very true:- but I think it will take rather more than protest to achieve this.
"The corporate world has gotten out of control. They don't need all that money." Spot on:- whilst I'm no leftie (the government can keep its larcenous sticky fingers away from my hard-earned), corporate pay & benefits for the upper echelons have reached levels of avarice undreamed of only a few years ago.
History has shown that even when a socialist government is installed - either voted in or having seized power, all that happens is that one class dictatorship is replaced by another. Socialists never redistribute wealth - instead they redistribute poverty & misery.
It's always us poor bastards in the middle who get squeezed and hammered.
The answer? I haven't formulated any ideas yet, but I can say my heart goes out to all you poor sods under the age of 40, when I think about your potential future, and the incompetent corrupt arseholes to whom you appear to have to entrust it...
Pick a random moment and switch on BBC parliment, count the number of MPs in the chamber discussing legislation that will effect every single voter in the country.
it's usually 2 to 3 dozen, and the other 600+ are not in comittee.
We now have more ministers than when we ran 2/3rds of the planet, rough 1 in 10 MPs is a minister or shadow.
So yes, cull them, and tell the remaining half that unless they stop moonlighting on their £6k/day directorships/consulting/etc. jobs, they'll go the same way as well.
I believe UK presidence involves an axeman, the last EU method involved lamp posts.
Maybe this is where EU methods should be followed, because the axeman had to quickly leave the country, and MP who was in charge (england's only military dictator), was subsequently dug up and hung at tyburn.
"I believe UK presidence involves an axeman, the last EU method involved lamp posts"
Not to be a typo or spelling pouncer, but I guess you mean 'precedent'. I suppose that may as well stand, since we've not killed a ruler by virtue of their status as such for hundreds of years.
The EU? Assuming you to mean Europe (because capital punishment isn't to the liking of Euro-luvvies!), I can't remember when they last hung a 'leader', but I do know that Nicolae Ceaușescu and Frau were shot in 1989. It was a pitiful sight, with them demanding to be shot together rather than singly. Having in the past stood against the Soviet invasion of Hungary, having eased press censorship and having offered Dubcek support and an open policy to the west he increasingly let his people and himself down by implementing more autocratic and brutal methods. It would seem that too much 'power' leads to such things, as the case of Mussolini appears to demonstrate...
...Mussolini once led a riot against the Italian war in Libya. He was an author and seemed to be a humane individual but, as we all know, he too became autocratic, inhumane and allied to the most inhumane and brutal regime within living memory. I say within living memory because, for example, the Romans were far more brutal and inhumane. However, along with his mistress Clara Petacci Mussolini was shot then kicked and spat upon, and they were both later hung up by meathooks in a public place...
...something of the kind, though not completely as brutal (I cannot forget the Iraq war) took place in ToniBler's mind.
Whatever, I find myself wondering how it is that people become so brutal, cruel and uncaring, after setting out with ostensibly good intentions.
"....Mussolini...." One of the continual little revisions of history the Left applie with gusto is the fact that both Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists. Mussolini left the PSI (Italian Socialist Party) to form the Facists because he was convinced Marxist dogma was failing the Socialist cause. As for Hitler, so many people forget that the Nazis were founded as the Germans Workers Party, was rechristened the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which was shortened to Nazi Party. Both could be more accurately described as national-socialists, but both got the grounding of their beliefs and values from the Left.
"We now have more ministers than when we ran 2/3rds of the planet, rough 1 in 10 MPs is a minister or shadow"
Sadly we mostly didn't run it, organisations like the East India Company did (even having a powerful army) or, in the case of the Netherlands, the Dutch East India Company. When the East India Company was unseated the British foreign office was responsible for training and appointing people to take up positions in the foreign service and they seemed to do a more humane and efficient job than the EIC, though in the long run it was bound to be a bloody business. No one likes to be owned by foreigners.
As to the numbers in parliament; they have to sit on committees, meet voters at constituency surgeries... ...the list of jobs done outside of parliament is huge. As much as I despise the creature, look the woman running the committee that's been grilling the BBC and insisted 'I'll have no more lies'. She works her backside off and has little time left for the remainder of her gruelling round.
Not many people are interested in the jobs given to MPs to do - for no extra remuneration - and perhaps it behoves them to investigate and see what they do. I would absolutely not do their job. Not even if you gave me a commercial salary for it. This does not mean that I do not despise the nanny state that we had between 1997 and 2010, which was filled with lies and, looking back, left many Labour champagne socialists very well off and able to fill their wine cellars with lots of the fine stuff.
The only way this will work is if we are active in politics; if we email, write, visit, telephone our representatives, tell them what we think, not sit back and accuse the system of failure because it has not divined what is going on in our cerebral hemispheres. So few people actually get involved in politics, and indeed so few vote, that the last lot rightly believed they could get away with the egregious shit they inflicted on us. It cannot mostly be over turned now. It was our collective fault. There should have been 10 million of us out on the streets before that grinning ghoul took us to war with Iraq; he should have been impeached (it's been done before) but no, we didn't write enough letters, type enough emails, make enough visits and telephone calls, and now the grinning ghoul is of all things a 'peace envoy' to the middle east of all places, and a very, very wealthy man to boot.
Peace envoy? It's like putting a paedophile in charge of a creche.
We were not interactive enough, and we paid for it.
"As to the numbers in parliament; they have to sit on committees, meet voters at constituency surgeries"
you would need to be running over 50 committees simultanously to account for the other 600+ mp's
yes there are a small number of MP's who do their job, but you could easily go to 260 MP's and not notice the difference, except maybe the expenses bill.
the US has roughly 760 congressmen for 350m people, we have 650+ for 70m, see proof the UK public sector is ineffecient and lacks productivity.
The surgeries are suppose to be on the days they are not in parliment, hence why the house officially sits for 3.5 days per week, and MP's have more "holidays" than teachers.
I would also note you have no way to get rid of a moonlighting MP, for example off on a reality TV show, instead of representing her constituants, but that's peanuts compared to one MP who tried a case as a barrister at the old bailey whilst still a siting MP, one of his clients wasn't getting their money's worth of his time, and I bet it wasn't the one coughing up thousands a day from the dock.
["Remember who your enemies are: billionaires who own banks and corporations who corrupt politicians who enslave the people in injustice," Totally agree:- who with more than a single number IQ could not?]
Sorry, but I don't view bill Gates as my enemy. His companys products have provided me with a career spanning 2 decades to date, which has been reasonably well paid, and as interesting as these things ever are.
I don't regard Warren Buffett as my enemy either. Nor Philip Green (though I don't purchase goods from his stores)....
To assert that those who disagree with your world view must be thick (single figure IQ) would seem to be a security blanket because you;re terrified they may actually simply be more enlightened or intelligent than yourself.
["The government doesn't listen to us. Big business doesn't listen. We're here to protest against greed and call for a fairer world." Very true:- but I think it will take rather more than protest to achieve this.]
Excellent - I think I can agree with you here, if you can just define what "fair" means to you. Fair to me is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Fair is a maximum 20% tax take and no national debt, because I don't thnk it fair to work more than one day in five of others benefit nor fair to pass on my generations fiscal incontinence to my childrens generation.
["The corporate world has gotten out of control. They don't need all that money." Spot on:- whilst I'm no leftie (the government can keep its larcenous sticky fingers away from my hard-earned), corporate pay & benefits for the upper echelons have reached levels of avarice undreamed of only a few years ago.]
Define "need". I don't need a night with Claudia Schiffer anymore than I need a night with Jo Brand, but I know which I'd prefer. I don't need a Ferrari more than I need a Fiesta, but I know which I'm working towards. And I don't need a larger pay packet, but I'm sure as hell pursuing it, because after all, why would I want to be less well paid than I can be?
I say all of this as one of those poor under sods under 40 (just). I like the system we have and I think it works better than almost any other system [benign dictatorship would work better provided I am the dictator].
""Cull The Tories" I disagree with this one:- why stop there? Cull the lot of 'em..."
That's right; deter all people but the most psychopathic from standing for election and we'll have a parliament of dictators. They'll take our freedom away from us, rape, torture and murder us and, when they've finished, they'll take what they want and sell the rest to the highest bidder. Putin maybe. Yeah baby, like, let's do it now man.
Where'd I put my bong? Anybody?..... .....does anybody have any plumbing at all pleeeze? A chillum maybe?
"That's right; deter all people but the most psychopathic from standing for election and we'll have a parliament of dictators."
and this is different to the majority of the current occupants of the house...how?
most civil liberties in the UK were created by unelected monarchs (including the basis for the US bill of rights), the current and previous elected governments have terminated more civil liberties in the last 20 years than in the previous century.
Military dictators can be good for getting a country organised and turned around, as well as dealing with their corrupt democratic predecessors, have a look at Jerry Rawlin's time in charge of Ghana, where he was instuting the full constituion, at the same time as UK citizens lost doubly jeopardy, amongst other liberties
bad government is bad government, regardless of the method of selection for the rulers
""That's right; deter all people but the most psychopathic from standing for election and we'll have a parliament of dictators."
and this is different to the majority of the current occupants of the house...how?"
I am not sure if you want me to dignify your question by responding in the context of the current government, which has inherited the biggest peacetime debt in this country's history, a debt already being formed by a spendthrift government even before we began to experience the worst recession since before WWII...
...however, it is the case that between 1997 and 2010 we had what I sometimes regard as a duopoly; there was little ToniBler and his Giving Tree, and behind him we had Golden McBroon with his Money Tree; the Money Tree operator fed the Giving Tree operator with funds, and everyone thought they were happy! Except of course for the armed forces, who were made to pay for ToniBler's martial adventurism out of the resources they would normally use to maintain a standing army, air force and navy; Golden didn't given give them any money to pay for Toni's wars, which was typical of his something for nothing economics...
...Eventually things went very badly for ToniBler because the electorate were beginning to twig where his policies of military adventurism, clandestine immigration, immigration, immigration and diversity reducation, diversity reducation, diversity reducation were concerned, never mind the fiscal implications of education, education, education and McBroon's selling cheap of 66% of treasury reserve gold when the market was at a 20 year low. See preview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDBsMi7WE8&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs (It is a pity that Spitting Image did not last into the 21st century, they would have ripped these gangsters to pieces.)
Thus the 'men in grey suits' spake, saying 'ToniBler 'tis time to leave, whereat ToniBler told the people "you are blessed!". Golden McBroon stepped in but, unfortunately for him, the new man in charge of the Money Tree, Alexander McKissieface, told him there was no money left! McBroon found the ship was headed for the rocks, but no treasury reserve gold to bail him out; you see, McBroon had sold off the gold for a song, announcing it in advance and selling it en bloc, all things which depress the market price; he errrrrupted with anger at McKissieface but alas he was kicked out of orifice, leaving one of his treasury secretaries to write a letter to the incoming Liberal-Democrat machine operator of the now thoroughly broken Money Tree, to the effect that he was 'sorry' but there was 'no money left'.
So the new government had to find money from nowhere. However, if you know of an inexpensive, magical way to eradicate the worst peacetime debt in our history, with some 20 NHS Trusts on the verge of bankruptcy... ...you could form a party of your own! Yes, you could set up and you could sort out the problem with whatever alternative economic strategy you have, other than the fiscal austerity pattern first mooted by McKissieface when he took charge of the broken Money Tree!
(A) the comment was about the general waste of space of all politcal parties MP's, basically they pickup a big pay check, and then largely don't bother turning up (just try and get MP attendance records on an FOI!)
(B) As somebody capable of doing a CBA, yes I can make the government more cost effective, over and above sacking half of MP and saving millions that way. You can save billions by scrapping all the voter-grubbing red-tape inducing complications found on the books.
e.g. under the last administration housing benefit cost £21bn, the current Clown of downing street made a great fuss of this, what he failed to do was check and understand the figures. i.e. multiply the average payment by the number of claimants, and oh look approx £7bn payments, £14bn in admin, possibly due to the war and peace tome that a claimant has to fill in, and some poor sod has to read through.
We have DWP forms that ask if you are a "share fisherman", it's not even vote grubing for this century!
Let's put a cap on wealth: 10 million per real person. Hard work is still rewarded, but the excess being hoarded goes back into the system to provide more jobs and more capital for small business.
Corporations could be similarly limited based on the number and quality of jobs they provide.
Now you have something to protest for specifically.
Exactly:- if no-one has more than £10,000,000 then anything for sale to the individual but priced over ten million, will drop in price until it reaches purchasable status and thus sells.
Or is withdrawn from the marketplace if the vendor decides to keep it.
Corporate purchases are obviously a different matter.
So i build a house with 2 bedrooms, and let's say it's value is £10m. Then some guy builds a 4 bedroom house next door, which would also be valued at £10m. Being that my house is half as big (and half as good), it's worth half as much - £5m. Then someone builds an 8 bed house. Mine is now only 25% as good, and so only worth £2.5m.
I see a flaw in this plan.
Who's going to sell a house for £20m, when the most that they would ever see of that would be £10m (being the cap)?
So lets say I own a place on Kensington Palace Gardens. It's worth £80m today. The house next door is a bit shit, and is only worth £40m. If i decide to sell mine, I'll only get £10m for it. If my neighbour wants to sell his for £10m, no-one will buy it because my one is twice as good. He'll only get £5m on the market for it. No-one will by my dad's place in Wentworth that was previously valued at £5m as they could buy my neighbour's pad for the same money. And so on and so forth.
If the met had not under taken a massive overtime generating scheme, and kettled the protesters in parliment square, would there have been less than 11 arrests?
Apart from the 1 item reported of criminal damage/theft of flag, how many of the rests where caused by trying to prevent free movement of people express their freedom of expression?
My wife and I went to see him in Nottingham on Friday and without a shadow of a doubt he surpassed our expectations to become the funniest stand-up act we've ever seen.
Whilst there were a few moments I’d argue his facts were wrong (that’s not to say I’m right, I’ve just read differently) his overall arguments against… well… everything were well thought out and structurally sound.
He’s coming across as an incredibly intelligent man with a good incite however having witnessed an Anonymous protest before (not this million march thing, just a random protest) I get the impression they themselves don’t really have a clue what they’re against and so I’d question why he was there at all.
If during the course of the night someone flung poo in the general direction of Cameron and Osborne they’d get two thumbs up from me. Actually through some at Miliband. He’s a cunt too.
In order to attract downvotes, I have decided to come clean.
1) I buy products from big corporations. My phone, for example. And food.
2) I save money into a pension, which is invested by wealthy people into companies they hope will grow in wealth, so that when I'm decrepit, I may get a small amount of that growth back as cash to stop me having to wrap up in blankets during the day to stay warm. This makes me a capitalist pig.
3) I hate the politicians, but I also see that I live in one of the most benign places on earth in terms of being able to just get on with my life without interference, and my main aim is to make those in power unable to do anything much at all (which they manage all by themselves with the exception of the odd stupid war, unfortunately)
5) I think the country takes a very sensibly large amount in tax from us all. I just think they could put it to better use sometimes.
6) The sight of 1000 masked people demonstrating is a sign to me that really, not a lot of people care very much about the causes that supposedly are represented by the marchers.
In short, if things are serious enough to merit a million people on the streets, I'll probably join them!
(LTDVC - let the down-voting commence!)
You do know that the realisable value of your pension has declined by a significant amount over the last few years as part of helping the masters of the universe shore up their finances ?
I see the IMF are suggesting a 10% haircut on individual savings as the next step in this ongoing process.
One cab driver, who was stuck in the middle of the protest at Parliament Square, told El Reg: "They don't seem to know what they're protesting about. They all seem to be here for different reasons."
Ooh. A london cab driver, that well known source of all political wisdom. Still, let's answer him, ad hominem aside.
You've missed the point, mr. Cabbie and, by extension, mr. Journalist; here you have a LOT of people who are VERY upset by a LOT of different things.
I think the Government, if it truly was working for the betterment of all Britain, should be paying attention, talking to the protestors and taking notes for consideration at the very least.
'Course, it isn't so it won't.
See the thing is, that Mr Cabbie is probably more representative of the British public than the Anon crowds. Rather than being the 99%, they are probably just another 1%. The a large bulk of the remaining 98% probably think they are a bunch of knobs, and have no desire to smash the system because life isn't actually that bad.
"See the thing is, that Mr Cabbie is probably more representative of the British public than the Anon crowds. Rather than being the 99%, they are probably just another 1%. The a large bulk of the remaining 98% probably think they are a bunch of knobs, and have no desire to smash the system because life isn't actually that bad."
That is the point of course. There are a number of mistakes made about the concepts involved in democracy. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood forgot that you can only do what's in your mandate or be liable for a kicking; ordinary Egyptians did not want the minority imposing Sharia law on them, it was not in the mandate, they did not vote for it, so Morsi walked the 'perp walk'. In the UK a few spotty faced youths think that by being anonymous and putting together a collation of silly ideas that would look better on an upper sixth form notice board they have a right to inflict themselves on the majority... ...indeed, they also appear to feel they have the right to cause police authorities to spend large sums of money policing their silliness, and on it goes.
This is merely the kindergarten version of Tony Benn, a nodding dog on the parcel shelf of Labour politics; the position which they currently occupy was previously taken by such vacant idiots as the 'Angry Brigades', one of the extreme forms of feminism (which actually, gasp, planted a bomb in emulation of the IB's aka the idiot brats), idiots supporting the murdering doctor, Che Guevara whose image adorns the breasts of thousands possibly millions of naive pulchritudinous teenage girlies, the Animal Liberation Front who liberated minks... ...all over England and, such was the magnificence of their wisdom in releasing an alien species without a care, that otters, shrews, voles and other regiments of indigenous species were on the at risk list.
Oh yes, let's listen to the nodding dogs on the parcel shelf, as they pass their deliberations on, deliberations developed over a hot pipe, a cool bong, a hot knife, a tab of acid, heaps of 'legal highs' or some other such juvenile nonsense consumed at junior networking parties; and Salmond wants to extend the franchise? I can see him and Tony Benn somehow contriving to nod solemnly together while simultaneously smiling their vacant idiot smile at the cars behind; the car in front is (driven and populated by) a small idiot collective which thinks it knows best (can do what it wants and all will be well for the rest of the population, trust us!), and thereby instantiates (to use a technical term from Austrian philosophy) a living, breathing form of the 'false consciousness' argument; the minority know better, and they want what they want now; remember, it is for our own good, and they know better. Or else?
I thought that all these protest where in vain and just a bunch of students shouting loudly, and Russel Brand fuelling his ego, but in the midst of the chaos finally a cause that has touched my heart, Goddammit how long are the British political establish going to continue this blatant abuse against these small nut gathers!
We have our slogan people let us take it forward and shout in proud voices
Free the squirrels!
Like the way the claim of "several thousands" got downgraded to a thousand in the first paragraph! The BBC, ITN and C4 all say it was more hundreds than thousands. And then we have the claims of "riot police" - all the police in the photos and vid reports from the BBC, ITN, C4, IBN, CNN, etc., etc., only show ordinary Met coppers in soft hats and not a shield in sight! Next you'll be claiming they made a mounted charge armed with sabres. Indeed, in many of the shots of "troublemakers confronting policemen" there seem to be actually more police trying to deal with the mass of barging photographers and other journos than actually dealing with the sad little bunch of protesters.
"Another pedestrian, in true British style, waved a can of beer in the air, toasted the badger ladies and light-heartedly shouted: "Free the squirrels!" ®
As an atheist I know better, but I would like to think that Tom Sharpe is looking down and laughing as your post was formed. This is the meat and drink of his books, particularly Wilt and The Wilt alternative, in which he sends up every form of terrorism, liberation front, politically correct politician, social worker and all of the little minorities in our 'society' that puff up their chests and self importantly claim that things must change according to their wishes, or, errm, uh, or they'll huff and they'll puff and they'll blow parliament down. Next week, or perhaps during the summer hols, when they come back from the Balkans or somewhere nice.
Well, how does the NotEvenCloseToAMillionMask march compare to a few choice London marches from recent years? Not very well, even the BNP and EDL have managed to draw more of their knuckle-dragging thugs out on a London march, and that's with the threat of being attacked by "anti-racists". The original UK Gay Pride Rally back in 1972 garnered at least two thousand members (by 2006 it was a multi-day event with 600,000 attending). CND managed 200,000 back on 22nd October 1983. And more recently we have the Anti-Cuts march of 27th March 2011 when the crowd was estimated at 250,000 protesters, but that's not even close to the 407,000 of the Countryside Alliance march of November 2006. It seems trick-or-treating for sweets must have been keeping the other kiddies busy if all the Anons managed was a few hundred in London! It really does make a mockery of their oft-repeated claim of being the "99%" - 99% of the mathematically-challenged and deluded, maybe. More like DampSquibInAMask!
"Remember who your enemies are: billionaires who own banks and corporations who corrupt politicians who enslave the people in injustice."
Would the corporation that wrote the SOPA and PIPA bill count? Sounds pretty corporation-corrupting-politiciansy to me. That would be Time Warner then, whose masks they're all wearing...
I hear distinct echos of the 1960s, especially in the US at that time.
J6P of 1965 poo-poo'd the commie hippies and dirty *minoroties* with almost the same words written here: "Don't seem to know what they are protesting for", "Put down the bong", "Get a job"
But to paraphrase one poster here who wrote, "The corporations do have too much power and your rights are being taken away and this is obvious to anyone with an IQ over a single digit."
Pretty much the same issues as back in the 1960s.
Damn sad how history has to repeat itself.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019