UK uncut NHS protection protest - Westminster bridge today 1pm.

[Freakbro]

It involves breaking the law, ergo it is criminal. What would you call it?

I changed it immediately knowing this would be an answer.

It's the rhetoric behind the usage, the implication then of anyone breaking the slightest of laws becomes a "Criminal"

I would guess that's pretty much every person in the country then.

I'm sorry, but an intrinsic part of protesting, striking et al are supposed to cause inconvenience or else they don't really carry much weight at all do they and if this breaks some minor law, well, so be it.

 

[PermaBanned]

Wannabe student revolutionaries: Changing the world, but not when there's something good on the telly.

 

[Freakbro]

Well, your response smacked of jealousy

err , Jealousy?

The lack of evidence based debates is one of the biggest problems with so many posters on this board, they just spout what they think, rather than what is actually the case.

I understand that, but through our conversations to date I have come to the assumption that you basically know what your talking about even if I don't agree with your conclusions all the time. I would have hoped you would have extended me the same courtesy.

Should we ignore the law if it is a cause we agree with? Should we diminish the actions of those we agree with?

We are ruled by consent and with discretion not by absolutes. I have quite a laissez faire attitude to the law and certainly do not run my life by it.

Direct action like this is the last resort of a vocal minority without popular support, to try and make their voice seem louder than their numbers suggest.

Tell that to the populous of Syria.

 

[Freakbro]

I lol'd (at you).

Yes yes I know it's not in the same level (I was just editing to say the same)

The point is if you follow Dolph's conclusions to the end, then you would never stand up for your rights, even when they are being taken away.

<edit> But then, with the leanings this country is heading towards and the cries to remove our Human Rights (I mean, who on earth would want Human Rights! ) Then maybe I can understand it a bit more.

 

[sigma]

Wannabe student revolutionaries: Changing the world, but not when there's something good on the telly.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Yes yes I know it's not in the same level (I was just editing to say the same)

The point is if you follow Dolph's conclusions to the end, then you would never stand up for your rights, even when they are being taken away.

Well said. Everyone has rights, it's up to the people to stand up for them if they really want to.

 

[Pate]

Came in expecting a protest at circumcision still being legal in non medically needed ways.

Left disappointed.

 

[Energize]

Came in expecting a protest at circumcision still being legal in non medically needed ways.

Left disappointed.

Same. That is actually a greater concern than the NHS changes.

 

[stockhausen]

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/

Westminster bridge, at 1pm - In 45 minutes.

For those of you who were unaware, and live in London (sorry it's a bit last minute). I'll be there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/22/ukuncut-westminster-bridge-nhs-protest

Sorry for the RSS - link and run, whatever. But it's something that many believe in and may want to support, but be unaware of.

See you there perhaps.

Good luck and well done for actually doing something positive

Sadly, I fear that the Tories have already done so much damage to th NHS that it is now irreversible. Hopefully the Lords will slow down their dismantling and privatisation of the NHS (The Grauniad) and the public will have the guts and memory to punish them for it at the next election.

As to the faux outrage at anyone breaking the law, that is rich coming from people who consider that speed limits don't apply to them

Anyway, well done you!

 

[Vonhelmet]

Good luck and well done for actually doing something positive

Sadly, I fear that the Tories have already done so much damage to th NHS that it is now irreversible. Hopefully the Lords will slow down their dismantling and privatisation of the NHS (The Grauniad) and the public will have the guts and memory to punish them for it at the next election.

As to the faux outrage at anyone breaking the law, that is rich coming from people who consider that speed limits don't apply to them

Anyway, well done you!

How much damage have the Tories done in a year, compared to however many years of Labour?

 

[Pate]

Same. That is actually a greater concern than the NHS changes.

How a person is allowed to mutilate a non consenting child is still beyond me.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

 

[Tefal]

Damn you Thatcher, Damn you!

 

[sigma]

<edit> But then, with the leanings this country is heading towards and the cries to remove our Human Rights (I mean, who on earth would want Human Rights! ) Then maybe I can understand it a bit more.

Please elaborate.

 

[Dolph]

err , Jealousy?

I understand that, but through our conversations to date I have come to the assumption that you basically know what your talking about even if I don't agree with your conclusions all the time. I would have hoped you would have extended me the same courtesy.

I do, but I also generally respond in kind. A dismissive post based on attacking me rather than the argument presented was met in kind.

We are ruled by consent and with discretion not by absolutes. I have quite a laissez faire attitude to the law and certainly do not run my life by it.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean that promoting illegal activity should be encouraged. Can you imagine how quickly a thread trying to organise a burglary would get shut down on here?

Tell that to the populous of Syria.

Please don't confuse the actions of UKuncut, or other groups protesting the cuts, with people fighting for rights. Nothing in the NHS bill changes the rights of access to healthcare, nothing in the cuts changes the rights people have.

It is highly disingenuous to compare the two, groups like UKuncut are protesting politics, not rights.

 

[Freakbro]

Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't know....maybe plucking something completely out of the air...like a recent comment from our Home Secretary maybe

Mrs May said the Human Rights Act 'needs to go' to restore 'sanity' in the UK immigration system

And the plethora of other examples the right espouse to misrepresent the facts surrounding the Human Rights Act to garner support for retracting it's powers.

When actually, afaik, apart from the protection from torture, all the other articles within the HRA already have caveats for their application to each nation

 

[Dolph]

Yes yes I know it's not in the same level (I was just editing to say the same)

The point is if you follow Dolph's conclusions to the end, then you would never stand up for your rights, even when they are being taken away.

Please stay away from the slippery slope fallacy. We are discussing the actions of a small group of political protestors undertaking illegal activities, not fighting back against an authoritarian regime. (Of course, the irony is that UKuncut etc are actually arguing for fiscal authoritarianism, they are actually arguing for rights to be removed through increased disregard to the right to property ownership and self-determination of business activities)

<edit> But then, with the leanings this country is heading towards and the cries to remove our Human Rights (I mean, who on earth would want Human Rights! ) Then maybe I can understand it a bit more.

Actually, the discussion is around replacing the human rights act with a bill of rights. I'm all for the human rights act being revisited, it currently provides the wrong sort of protections, fails to balance opposing rights appropriately, and fails to protect the majority against many types of state rights restriction. Wanting reform is not the same as wanting no human rights.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Does the human rights act afford anyone in this country rights which are not already implicit or explicit in the legislation and common law in force in this country?

 

[Dolph]

Does the human rights act afford anyone in this country rights which are not already implicit or explicit in the legislation and common law in force in this country?

A couple, the right to family life (which is one of the ones that is not currently balanced correctly against opposing rights) being the most obvious.

The thing is, the HRA is supposed to be somewhat like a constitution with regards to rights, but it's so poorly written, it is failing at doing so. It didn't, for example, protect us against the DNA database abuse that Labour created, nor did it protect us against the state's desire for mandatory ID cards. It doesn't protect against abusive taxation or unnecessarily restrictive legislation. On the flip side, it fails to balance opposing rights (such as freedom of religion against freedom from discrimination, or the rights of the majority to be protected from crime against the right of immigrant criminals to avoid deportation due to making an life here) in a satisfactory way.

That is why the HRA needs reform, and to be fair, the level of reform required is almost certainly a complete rewrite. It doesn't mean that someone who advocates reform opposes human rights, in many cases, it means we want to ensure that they are protected better than the current legislation achieves.

 

[Freakbro]

I do, but I also generally respond in kind. A dismissive post based on attacking me rather than the argument presented was met in kind.

Understandable and I apologise for my initial comment, which was supposed to be just sarcasm which I removed quickly on reflection as I felt it did overstep the line. (Then OldCoals quoted it, on purpose? )

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean that promoting illegal activity should be encouraged. Can you imagine how quickly a thread trying to organise a burglary would get shut down on here?

And rightly so, but it is degrees of illegality again isn't it. Burglary we can all agree on is a serious offence, so is rioting for example. I don't feel promoting people into breaking section 137 of the highways act 1980 to be in the same league, just as the comparison of Syria and these protests are not valid.

Please don't confuse the actions of UKuncut, or other groups protesting the cuts, with people fighting for rights. Nothing in the NHS bill changes the rights of access to healthcare, nothing in the cuts changes the rights people have.

It is highly disingenuous to compare the two, groups like UKuncut are protesting politics, not rights.

No I'm not, it was a quick comment and open to misunderstanding. I had deviated off topic and was not talking about these specific protests by UKuncut, but just about protesting/striking/civil rights in general.

But, if in the case of standing up for one's principles/rights you should never break any law or be disobedient then you could find yourself ending up in a place like Syria, where you have lost most of your freedoms. Then the "illegal" actions you have to take are far more severe with far worse consequences than maybe getting a baton over the head for sitting in the road.