Great, but as paranoid as you may be UK Cuts are not out to break into your living room and beat you to death.
Perhaps not, but it seems if I'm a law-abiding owner of a business engaging in lawful activity who is quite reasonably and legally minimising my tax liability as best I can, they are out to commit aggravated trespass on my business property. Private property is private property.
No it doesn't. This is a false and perverted analogy. I've had enough of these, thanks.
So you accept that in at least some circumstances we cannot be justified in breaking the law to highlight our grievances? Great, we're making progress.
So how do you distinguish between aggravated trespass and arson? As rights violations they are equal.
I do not believe many set out to commit aggravated trespass at all. Many may subconciously recognise before hand that by taking a peaceful protest there en masse it may have the same end result as preventing business through overcrowding as a byproduct; but if that turns into a reality then it is not the fault of the individual protester.
I disagree. I would suppose a majority of the protestors, although perhaps not intending to cause disruption to the business through their own individual actions, embarked on the protest knowing that the action as a collective endeavour would cause disruption. As far as I'm aware there is no legal precedent for this.
So it is in effect nothing to do with implied breaking and entering, and has nothing to do with the right of using reasonable force to kill in your own defense as you implied with the analogy then?
It is still a civil matter.
I apologise if you interpreted my home defence analogy as relevant to this point; I never alluded to that. Breaking and entering is a separate offence.
For the purpose of argument it is possible to ignore how the person got onto the property. In the shop case, they had an implied licence but that has been rescinded. We could assume, for example, that you originally invited me into your living room, giving me licence to be on the property, then I deeply offended you and you likewise rescinded my right to be there.
As in the previous office example, for this to be as analogous to the Fortnum & Mason case as possible, we would also assume that I can return to your property without breaking and entering (i.e. that you have no lock on your door, etc.)
To draw in another comparison into the mix since it is such a jolly thing to do, imagine it as temporary squatting except it isn't a vacant property or land it is a private pseudo public space. Interestingly squating can also cost business and people a lot of money and aggravation, and still remains a civil matter unless physical damage has been caused.
I do not support squatters' rights in the slightest, and believe — like many in this country judging from the sporadic media coverage the issue gets — the law needs to be reformed.
There is a of course a relative point in what you say but to draw it across as a majority with nothing more than conjecture and use it to argue that all left/keynesian/*other* opposition to your ideology as next to nearly defunct is a fallacy. You think what is happening now is the right course of action, and that others are wrong. Otherwise you would also admit that there are those on the further economic right who also have differing views from the mainstream, expressing quite disappointment in fact.
The current government was elected by the people of this country. They, like the body of law, represent and enforce the moral sentiment of a majority of the country.
There are issues with that, I'll be the first to point out, but there is a vast difference between a legally elected government acting on majority-held views and an individual acting unlawfully to put forward her individually-held views. Your comparison between the two is bogus on those grounds.
There is justification if the end justifies the means, as long as it is peaceful.
I could peacefully make your life a living hell. The UK Uncut protestors are peacefully harassing businesses, disrupting their lawful activity, causing them not insubstantial financial losses. According to your interpretation of the law they should be allowed to continue to do so
ad infinitum, potentially bringing businesses such as Fortnum & Mason to the ground.
You take a small peaceful example and compare it to a violent and deadly situation.
And this is not hyperbolic at all, no?
Protesters aren't terrorists, no?
It is not hyperbolic, no, or at least has none of the negative connotations of the term as you intend it. Again, it is
reductio ad absurdum. I take your argument and demonstrate how it can also be used to justify absurd and morally repugnant actions, many of which involve violence. Instead of waving your hands about and declaring such absurd examples hyperbolic (because that's. the. point.), you should either be adjusting your argument to avoid such flaws, explaining how your argument is already nuanced enough to make a distinction between these cases (which you have consistently failed to do), or just straight up give it up. Take your pick.
Ah negative proof.
There isn't any debate in it at the moment from what we know, so far the police have failed to present any evidence to the lawyers of 149 people.
Yes, we should not be debating this point. Once again it is irrelevant; proof is not required for an arrest to be enacted, as I have explained countless times now.
It isn't breaking peoples rights as you infer, this isn't your analogy of burning houses. It is temporarily breaking the rights of plc's and large enterprises, and in some cases near publically owned 'private' entities, on the whole with what is a peaceful protest.
So what's the distinction between PLCs/large enterprises and people? Businesses are owned by people too. When you disrupt businesses you are infringing the rights of the business owners, and causing them financial harm. You need to drop the 'us vs. them' mentality; it doesn't justify violation of businesses' rights but not individual rights.
The concept of aggravated trespass is relatively new, open to subjective arguments and overpowered to the land owner certainly in cases of minor short term peaceful protests when invoked.
As it should be. What is your objection, if any, to this?
This was a valid protest method that was removed from the population for the benefit of the few because of the abuse by an extreme minority against them; and now it happens to help if you use it in bulk in situations like this to deal with less dangerous and less personally confrontational demonstrations..
Again, I could peacefully make your life a living hell. You can throw the word "peaceful" around until the cows come home, it won't change the fact that aggravated trespass involving the disruption of business infringes on rights, causes harm, and should be (and in fact is) legislated against as a criminal offence.
These laws are a result of a spotlight policy or outright fallacies, and as such has removed quite valid methods of protest.
Once again, aggravated trespass is not and never will be a valid method of protest.
You seem to infer that the Treasury/Revenue position on evasion schemes is a static ‘moral position’. It isn't, it is an economic balance with political influence.
It is the position supported by the democratically-elected government.
What is considered an acceptable clause or scheme this year may not be next year, depending on the popularity complexity in fighting and cost to revenue.
Correct, but the UK Uncut campaign does not appear to consider this. It is an uneducated mob mentality. All it takes is one person to point the finger at a business, make up a figure (HMRC described the Vodafone £6bn figure as an "urban myth", for example; people are still libellously touting it) and the mob descends on that business. When questioned about their actions, they simply respond "They're dodging millions/billions in tax! It's a class war! If they weren't dodging tax we wouldn't need these public sector cuts!" These guys won't fare well in the history books.
This is under constant assessment. So, if you claim there is a legal moral standard in law then changing the position by way of this assessment is surely breaking this claimed moral standard?
Treasury decisions aren't impervious.
Not in the slightest. The task of the treasury, and indeed the law more generally stated, is to reflect the prevailing moral opinion of society.
Proposing, protesting, and arguing in favour of alternative moral standards does not require breaking the existing moral standard.
Crucially, however, having a different moral standard does not justify you in breaking the law and disrupting businesses.
I am arguing for more rights here in light of restrictive measures recently, and do argue for freedom of movement and speech abroad.
You are the one who has been undermining the process here by claiming we should't protest for morally/poltically polarised issues, not me.
The hypocrisy of these closing statements is remarkable.
You are arguing for the right for protestors to violate other peoples'/businesses' rights. You cannot possibly assume the role of rights-protector on those grounds.
I am only arguing against the right to protest
where it violates other peoples'/businesses' rights. The right to protest is important, but it does not trump your right not to have your house burned down, or Fortnum & Mason's right not to have their property trespassed on and their lawful activity disrupted.
