Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 11:40

Dolph said:
don't you mean the poll tax riots?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

Kind of proves my point really...

I did not support or take part in poll tax riots, I protested peacefully, how much poll tax would your household be paying now not for protesters?

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 11:43

spankingtexan said:
I did not support or take part in poll tax riots, I protested peacefully, how much poll tax would your household be paying now not for protesters?

Probably substansially less than I pay in council tax, as the funding would be more closely distributed to usage based on occupancy.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 11:50

Dolph said:
What is the purpose of the various marches through cities? what about sit ins and blockading of businesses?

And the number is very relevant when you are working in a democracy.

Where is the violence in marching through cities? sit ins are not violent but sometimes required for their bite.
The Police can move them on, where are the violent boycott workfare protests?

The number of protesters are not relevant other than they have a democratic right to peaceful protest. Why is a democratic peaceful protest just a step down from terrorism? Can you not distinguish the difference?

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...ld-ids-to-account-for-his-use-of-statistics-2

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 11:55

spankingtexan said:
Where is the violence in marching through cities? sit ins are not violent but sometimes required for their bite.
The Police can move them on, where are the violent boycott workfare protests?

The number of protesters are not relevant other than they have a democratic right to peaceful protest. Why is a democratic peaceful protest just a step down from terrorism? Can you not distinguish the difference?

Sit ins are a direct attempt to infringe the rights of others, as are other attempts to cause disruption to further the cause. That position is very similar to the terrorist idea of infringing rights to further the cause. the only difference is the specific rights of others that you are willing to infringe for the cause.

Do note I am not talking about petitions in this, but the escalations from them. petitons should be treated based on the number of signatories, when compared to the voting public.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:02

Dolph said:
Sit ins are a direct attempt to infringe the rights of others, as are other attempts to cause disruption to further the cause. That position is very similar to the terrorist idea of infringing rights to further the cause. the only difference is the specific rights of others that you are willing to infringe for the cause.

Do note I am not talking about petitions in this, but the escalations from them. petitons should be treated based on the number of signatories, when compared to the voting public.

The Police can move them on, if businesses do not want protesters at their premises then they should refrain from using forced unpaid labour, likening peaceful protests as very similar to terrorism is idiotic.

Do you consider politicians who try to deceive the public acceptable? What problem can you possibly have with those who protest such lies other than maybe you like the deceit?

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:07

spankingtexan said:
The Police can move them on, if businesses do not want protesters at their premises then they should refrain from using forced unpaid labour, likening peaceful protests as very similar to terrorism is idiotic.

Justification of action due to the cause is another good correlation, as is apologia. Your justification sounds similar to the 'We gave a warning' arguments..

The fact that the police can be called confirms you are infringing the rights of others to go about their lawful business.

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:10

spankingtexan said:
Do you consider politicians who try to deceive the public acceptable? What problem can you possibly have with those who protest such lies other than maybe you like the deceit?

No, I don't consider it acceptable, but given the quality of the website you keep linking to, your determination to decieve the public with lies and misinformation does make you a hypocrite of the highest order...

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:15

Dolph said:
Justification of action due to the cause is another good correlation, as is apologia. Your justification sounds similar to the 'We gave a warning' arguments..

The fact that the police can be called confirms you are infringing the rights of others to go about their lawful business.

Do you consider others infringing the rights of workers who should be entitled the NMW be ignored? it works both ways, the Police attend to keep the peace not because any law is broken by peaceful protesters, you have to accept not all think like you.

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:17

spankingtexan said:
Do you consider others infringing the rights of workers who should be entitled the NMW be ignored? it works both ways, the Police attend to keep the peace not because any law is broken by peaceful protesters, you have to accept not all think like you.

If the right of people to be paid minimum wage is being infringed, laws already exist for this, however the minimum wage is not a right in this context, it is not fundamental, and the people on workfare are not employed...

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:19

Dolph said:
No, I don't consider it acceptable, but given the quality of the website you keep linking to, your determination to decieve the public with lies and misinformation does make you a hypocrite of the highest order...

I am not trying to deceive the public, the sites I link to are honest and trying to make a vast number of people aware that their elected Government is not always honest and unfair forced unpaid labour just isn't right.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:21

Do you still consider democratic peaceful protests to be similar to terrorism?

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:25

Dolph said:
No, I don't consider it acceptable, but given the quality of the website you keep linking to, your determination to decieve the public with lies and misinformation does make you a hypocrite of the highest order...

As you don't consider it acceptable, will you sign the petition?

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...ld-ids-to-account-for-his-use-of-statistics-2

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:25

spankingtexan said:
Do still consider democratic peaceful protests to be similar to terrorism?

Loaded question fallacy again.

I consider setting out to disrupt or infringe the rights of others to be similar to terrorism, because the attitude is similar, even if the rights you are willing to infringe differ.

Have you stopped beating your wife?*

*note, this is not a serious question, but the classic example for a loaded question...

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:28

spankingtexan said:
As you don't consider it acceptable, will you sign the petition?

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...ld-ids-to-account-for-his-use-of-statistics-2

No, because the petition doesn't just condemn the use of statistics but comes with a load of irrelevant appeals to emotion and false conclusions.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:32

Dolph said:
Loaded question fallacy again.

I consider setting out to disrupt or infringe the rights of others to be similar to terrorism, because the attitude is similar, even if the rights you are willing to infringe differ.

Have you stopped beating your wife?*

*note, this is not a serious question, but the classic example for a loaded question...

But i'm just quoting what you said, you said it, the protesters don't go out to infringe the rights of others, they are protesting their involvement and administering forced unpaid labour, where do you think the protesters should protest then? I mean if we all went into the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere then I agree that protest would be a waste of time.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:34

Dolph said:
No, because the petition doesn't just condemn the use of statistics but comes with a load of irrelevant appeals to emotion and false conclusions.

So you say you don't agree with their deceit but refuse to challenge it.

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:37

spankingtexan said:
But i'm just quoting what you said, you said it, the protesters don't go out to infringe the rights of others, they are protesting their involvement and administering forced unpaid labour, where do you think the protesters should protest then? I mean if we all went into the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere then I agree that protest would be a waste of time.

They are fully aware of the impact their activites will have, so should be at least honest that they don't have any respect for the rights of others. By acknowledging that the disruption of the rights of others aids your cause, you are confirming what I am saying. you advocate rights infringement as a bullying tactic to force people to give in to your demands.

The crux of your argument is that the infringement of the rights of others is ok because your cause is just. I disagree, the infringement of rights when discussion has failed is unacceptable regardless of cause.

Dolph · 12 May 2013 at 12:38

spankingtexan said:
So you say you don't agree with their deceit but refuse to challenge it.

No, I refuse to sign a petiton that comes with its own deceit included. I have already written in to raise my concerns about the statistics use and the failure to implement a system that is non confrontational when it comes to tax and benefits.

v0n · 12 May 2013 at 12:40

spankingtexan said:
i'm protesting in the interests of the majority.

You are not. You are protesting against interest of majority. That's the part you don't understand. You protest for all the wrong reasons and in all the wrong ways and and such it is wrong as a whole, even if it happens to overlap, in tiny, small percent on a cause that most of us would support.

spankingtexan said:
Do you still consider democratic peaceful protests to be similar to terrorism?

You were advocating exploitation of customer service policies and creating criminal damage to goods in supermarkets to further your cause just a few pages ago. Remember? "Terrorist" might be harsh, but I started to use word "militia" for the organisations you represent and promote after your call to arms. What you promote and stand for is neither democratic nor peaceful. We wouldn't have such problems supporting your cause if you were democratic, peaceful and served interests of majority.

spankingtexan · 12 May 2013 at 12:45

Dolph said:
They are fully aware of the impact their activites will have, so should be at least honest that they don't have any respect for the rights of others. By acknowledging that the disruption of the rights of others aids your cause, you are confirming what I am saying. you advocate rights infringement as a bullying tactic to force people to give in to your demands.

The crux of your argument is that the infringement of the rights of others is ok because your cause is just. I disagree, the infringement of rights when discussion has failed is unacceptable regardless of cause.

Rubbish, protesting has to be carried out around those who administer unfair treatment, what about the rights of the protester? Protesters peacefully protest at Salvation Army only to be accused of assault, get arrested then de-arrested when it turned out to be a LIE.