Originally posted by tojoThis incident needs to be placed in the context of the new security situation in the UK after the London bombings.
Was anybody else as disgusted as me by the display during Jack Straw's speech yesterday?
Since when is it such a crime to heckle at a conference?
How can they justify throwing out an 82-yr-old labour supporter for daring to refuse to toe the party line?
The quote from the Labour Party Chairman is the one that really got me...
"He was asked to cal ...[text shortened]... speaking, and no-one is allowed to contradict or question him?
Totalitarianism, anyone...?ðŸ˜
I don't think it has anything to do with not allowing people to say what they want to say ...... and this incident has nothing to do with the birth of a police state either.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow can you say that?
This incident needs to be placed in the context of the new security situation in the UK after the London bombings.
I don't think it has anything to do with not allowing people to say what they want to say
First, this is an 82 year old man who was forcibly ejected for offering disagreement with a speaker at a 'conference' during what was supposed to be a 'debate'.
Secondly, the Terrorism Act was not intended to detain people who have taken umbrage at being chucked out of a conference they have every right to express their opinion at.
Thirdly, a man attempting to stop a frail 82 year old man being physically manhandled was also ejected.
You of all people ivanhoe, who harks on about brownshirt tactics, should see the duality of your stance.
Have you watched the video?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am placing this incident within the context of the bombings.
This incident needs to be placed in the context of the new security situation in the UK after the London bombings.
I don't think it has anything to do with not allowing people to say what they want to say ...... and this incident has nothing to do with the birth of a police state either.
It has everything to do with not allowing people to say what they want to say. That is exactly what happened. One old man dared to challenge Jack Straw's word, and was manhandled out of the building by a bunch of heavies.
It's just like when the pro-hunters tried to interrupt Blair before, and got bundled out by heavies. Blair's quip at the time was that least you were free to make that kind of protest in this country... They were then prosecuted for breach of the peace.....
Originally posted by ivanhoeI accidentally rec'd you when wanting hit reply..
[b]Invigorate: " We are turning into a police state .... "
I have been hearing this for ages ..... it still hasn't happened yet .....
What makes you think now is the moment ?[/b]
but still...
I'm a white middle class tax payer. I commit no crime but I feel more threated by the Police than protected by them.
We are photo'd 300 times per day. We are told to sit down at football should we dare to show paaion and stand. We are ejected from a sports arena having paid £50 if we swear.
Speed camers and humps stop me driving at a sensible speed. Have you tried to open a bank account in the UK recently....or even a video shop...or tried to buy some Mach 3 razors...or get your voice heard on any political issue.
I'm anti ID cards but they are coming in by the back door.
The government doesn't trust its own people.
Originally posted by tojoHow can they justify throwing out an 82-yr-old labour supporter for daring to refuse to toe the party line?
How can they justify throwing out an 82-yr-old labour supporter for daring to refuse to toe the party line?
How can he call it a debate, if there is only one person speaking, and no-one is allowed to contradict or question him?
Tony Blair apologised for this most unfortunate incident.
How can he call it a debate, if there is only one person speaking, and no-one is allowed to contradict or question him?
That is a good question. If they merely programmed speeches without intending a debate, they shouldn't call it a debate. It might cause misunderstandings as we were able to witness now. The fact this went wrong does not mean however Labour is becoming an authoritarian, undemocratic political party.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd if you paid attention to the section of your text I was quoting, you will see that I removed that part. Would you like to address my point now?
Yes, I have ..... and I did not see the birth of a police state nor any other signs that were supposed to be indicative of Labour turning into an authoritarian undemocratic party.
1 edit
Originally posted by invigorateI accidentally rec'd you when wanting hit reply..
I accidentally rec'd you when wanting hit reply..
but still...
I'm a white middle class tax payer. I commit no crime but I feel more threated by the Police than protected by them.
We are photo'd 300 times per day. We are told to sit down at football should we dare to show paaion and stand. We are ejected from a sports arena having paid £50 if ...[text shortened]... cards but they are coming in by the back door.
The government doesn't trust its own people.
How do you think I get my recs ....... 😛
I'm anti ID cards but they are coming in by the back door.
I haven't opened any bank account in the UK lately but I can tell you that my bank asked me to pay a visit to their local office in order for me to show my passport ..... again. They wrote me a letter about it, telling me about terrorism, organised crime, etc. ..... blah blah ..... , but after a while, I always like to wait a little after such a request, they phoned me ..... I promised to visit their office but I did not say when ...... he he.
In the Netherlands we now are obliged to show an ID if we are asked to do so by a police officer. There are people protesting against this, but people in general see the need for it looking at the recent events in our country in the post Pim Fortuyn area. We will however be watching the police Argus-eyed and we will certainly keep track of how they, police and politicians, will handle this new law .....
Originally posted by StarrmanSecondly, the Terrorism Act was not intended to detain people who have taken umbrage at being chucked out of a conference they have every right to express their opinion at.
How can you say that?
First, this is an 82 year old man who was [b]forcibly ejected for offering disagreement with a speaker at a 'conference' during what was supposed to be a 'debate'.
Secondly, the Terrorism Act was not intended to detain people who have taken umbrage at being chucked out of a conference they have every right to express th ...[text shortened]... about brownshirt tactics, should see the duality of your stance.
Have you watched the video?[/b]
I agree.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe apologies from Blair/Straw/McCartney were for the method of extraction, not the fact of extraction. This is a crackdown on free speech, no matter how much spin they come out with...
[b]How can they justify throwing out an 82-yr-old labour supporter for daring to refuse to toe the party line?
Tony Blair apologised for this most unfortunate incident.
How can he call it a debate, if there is only one person speaking, and no-one is allowed to contradict or question him?
That is a good question. If they merely programmed ...[text shortened]... t wrong does not mean however Labour is becoming an authoritarian, undemocratic political party.[/b]
Heckling has always been a part of these conferences. If you live/work in a situation where you are not allowing any form of disagreement, you are authoritarian, if you are a political party doing this, you are undemocratic.
The bombing in London is not an excuse. Who were the IRA, cookie-selling girl scouts? During the 80's, there were bombs going off every month in London, and elsewhere. John Major had an IRA mortar fly into his back garden, but he never dreamed of using it as an excuse to impose such draconian laws.
New Labour are dragging us along a very dangerous road, and I fear where it may lead...
Originally posted by tojoAre you afraid of a development you might call a Slippery Slope ?
The apologies from Blair/Straw/McCartney were for the method of extraction, not the fact of extraction. This [b]is a crackdown on free speech, no matter how much spin they come out with...
Heckling has always been a part of these conferences. If you live/work in a situation where you are not allowing any form of disagreement, you are ...[text shortened]... laws.
New Labour are dragging us along a very dangerous road, and I fear where it may lead...[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis has very little to do with the whole 'slippery slope' fallacy. It is a statement of fact, they have done this, and it is wrong.
Are you afraid of a development you might call a Slippery Slope ?
I am not stating this is the beginning of an inevitable path towards a police state, just that what they have already done is wrong. What they are doing is wrong.
There is nothing inevitable about where this will lead, but neither is it inevitable that it will not lead to a police state. Any movement in that direction is wrong, not because of the final step it could lead to, but because each step in itself is wrong.
To put in one sentence...
I am afraid of the developements that may/may not come, but more importantly, I am afraid and ANGRY at what is happening now.
Originally posted by tojoI understand where you're coming from.
This has very little to do with the whole 'slippery slope' fallacy. It is a statement of fact, they have done this, and it is wrong.
I am not stating this is the beginning of an inevitable path towards a police state, just that what they have already done is wrong. What they are doing is wrong.
There is nothing inevitable abo ...[text shortened]... ay not come, but more importantly, I am afraid and [b]ANGRY at what is happening now.[/b]
substitute anything you may feel appropriate:
“In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I was a Protestant, so I did not speak up. And then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.” (Martin Niemoller)
1 edit
Originally posted by coiThank you for giving this quote. Rec-ed.
substitute anything you may feel appropriate:
“In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, ...[text shortened]... came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.” (Martin Niemoller)