By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My views, trying to be impartial, but in the interests of "full disclosure" I'd like a 2nd referendum to decisively vote to remain and that we'd return to the EU and tell them the whole "thing" was due a complete revamp. Anyway, enough of that.
My concern is the increasing regularity that I'm reading of the risks of "civil disobedience" (riots?) in the event of whatever route Parliament determines that we proceed upon in the next couple of weeks.
I have a problem with any public figure speculating on this subject. I also believe that some of those making such comments are doing so to attempt to influence MPs to include the perceived risk of "civil disobedience" as a factor relevant to their decision as to how to vote.
Does this venture into "mob rule" territory?
I'm glad I'm not enough of an historian to identify the lessons we should be looking at here.
Anyone care to help?
0
It's time to discuss threats of on 02:37 - Dec 2 with 4621 views
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
I've written 2 posts on this topic in the last 18 months.
I think "organised chaos" is a UK government strategy and Brexit is a component of this. For me, political and significant media figures who warn of civil disobedience are doing their part to manifest it. The preparation for such an outcome is a more militarised and less tolerant police among other things. Anti-terror ism laws are already in place to support police action against anti government protest.
Here's something else we should think about. Most people won't like it, many will say I'm wrong, but anyone is welcome to link back to this post in future and shame me for my stupidity if they can demonstrably prove what I say is incorrect:
UK Party politics on big issues (Brexit being one of them) is just a game. People should have sussed the fact that our democracy is pretty much a sham when Cameron headed the Remain campaign and Boris lead Leave. The two men are pretty much cut from the same cloth politically, ideologically and socially. Sold at the time as perhaps the most important votes of our lives, Brexit has been nothing short of farcical.
I once believed that 52%(leave)/48%(stay) was a miscalculation by the government, and as such were reluctant to deal seriously with the result of the vote and delay Brexit for as long as possible. Not so, the result was perfect. It was big enough to start a break up of the EU in its current format, yet close enough to be sufficiently divisive to serve as a distraction while the government goes ahead with their real plans.
I once thought the referendum hinging on a majority vote was reckless and an enormously arrogant target for the government to set. Not at all, it was within the government's plans as well as the Bankers' and their people inside the EU.
So how might this pan out? I believe there is a concerted effort to break up nation states (especially those in the south and perhaps the east that might threaten to leave the EU) because it's not working for them. There's a move towards a new EU with Brussels overseeing weaker federal entities. The plan is divide and rule and create a sort of United States of Europe. London will "remain" in Europe - the bankers of the City were never going to concede anything to Frankfurt.
Irrespective of what the official line in the EU is, independence-seeking Catalunia is an example of this intended break-up. The disorder (or to use the word of the year "Chaos") caused by Brexit is also part of this. No one seems to be asking why Britain has been introducing EU laws unrelentingly since the Brexit vote. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3200657/more-than-50000-eu-laws-will-be-brought-onto-britains-books-by-theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill-new-research-shows/ Seriously, what is "Brexit" about that?
It's important for our leaders to maintain the illusion of democracy. Fortunately, some people are wising up to the fact that something is amiss with our own politicians in the UK. But, it's bigger than that: the bankers who run our lives and their people in the EU are also in on it. Democracy, domestically and in the EU, is little more than a sham and it will only get more shambolic while we fail to recognise the fact.
We need to stop reacting to what our politicians and their media mouth-pieces say and do something about what is actually happening. If we don't, the show will go on.
If you justify the existence of these people by voting, you can't complain.
Public Disorder usually results in the government giving more powers to the Police through new legislation. Sometimes, these laws can be interpreted and used against the public eg. Anti-terroism laws where tourists were being questioned for photographing London landmarks. The "Sus" laws were part of the 1824 Vagrancy act and were also interpreted to allow the police to stop and search as long as there was a second witness which was of course the other policeman as they patrolled in 2's. This 1824 act wasn't repealed until 1981 so these laws stick around for a long time once they are on the books. So anyone saying we're creeping towards a Police state is only right if the government and judges allow the Police to interpret these laws to run roughshod over Human Rights legislation. For those who want a Police State, Human Rights legislation could be removed/watered down thanks to Brexit. Fun times ahead.
Don't believe a word I say. I'm only kidding. Or am I?
It's time to discuss threats of "civil disobedience" on 10:37 - Dec 2 by Oldsmoker
Public Disorder usually results in the government giving more powers to the Police through new legislation. Sometimes, these laws can be interpreted and used against the public eg. Anti-terroism laws where tourists were being questioned for photographing London landmarks. The "Sus" laws were part of the 1824 Vagrancy act and were also interpreted to allow the police to stop and search as long as there was a second witness which was of course the other policeman as they patrolled in 2's. This 1824 act wasn't repealed until 1981 so these laws stick around for a long time once they are on the books. So anyone saying we're creeping towards a Police state is only right if the government and judges allow the Police to interpret these laws to run roughshod over Human Rights legislation. For those who want a Police State, Human Rights legislation could be removed/watered down thanks to Brexit. Fun times ahead.
The two most popular ways people protest against their government (outside the ballot box) are:
a) general strike b) public disorder/civil unrest
One of these is really effective and grinds the country to a standstill, the other is really easy to infiltrate by the police and does little apart from increasing future policing powers and insurance premiums.
It's essentially a no-brainer but the British usually chose option b. Why? Because the public perceive that is what the government fears most because of articles in the Guardian like the one GB linked to.
It's very simple, giving your government increased policing and surveillance powers does not really hurt your government at all, in fact it's playing into their hands.
It's time to discuss threats of on 08:01 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
I've written 2 posts on this topic in the last 18 months.
I think "organised chaos" is a UK government strategy and Brexit is a component of this. For me, political and significant media figures who warn of civil disobedience are doing their part to manifest it. The preparation for such an outcome is a more militarised and less tolerant police among other things. Anti-terror ism laws are already in place to support police action against anti government protest.
Here's something else we should think about. Most people won't like it, many will say I'm wrong, but anyone is welcome to link back to this post in future and shame me for my stupidity if they can demonstrably prove what I say is incorrect:
UK Party politics on big issues (Brexit being one of them) is just a game. People should have sussed the fact that our democracy is pretty much a sham when Cameron headed the Remain campaign and Boris lead Leave. The two men are pretty much cut from the same cloth politically, ideologically and socially. Sold at the time as perhaps the most important votes of our lives, Brexit has been nothing short of farcical.
I once believed that 52%(leave)/48%(stay) was a miscalculation by the government, and as such were reluctant to deal seriously with the result of the vote and delay Brexit for as long as possible. Not so, the result was perfect. It was big enough to start a break up of the EU in its current format, yet close enough to be sufficiently divisive to serve as a distraction while the government goes ahead with their real plans.
I once thought the referendum hinging on a majority vote was reckless and an enormously arrogant target for the government to set. Not at all, it was within the government's plans as well as the Bankers' and their people inside the EU.
So how might this pan out? I believe there is a concerted effort to break up nation states (especially those in the south and perhaps the east that might threaten to leave the EU) because it's not working for them. There's a move towards a new EU with Brussels overseeing weaker federal entities. The plan is divide and rule and create a sort of United States of Europe. London will "remain" in Europe - the bankers of the City were never going to concede anything to Frankfurt.
Irrespective of what the official line in the EU is, independence-seeking Catalunia is an example of this intended break-up. The disorder (or to use the word of the year "Chaos") caused by Brexit is also part of this. No one seems to be asking why Britain has been introducing EU laws unrelentingly since the Brexit vote. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3200657/more-than-50000-eu-laws-will-be-brought-onto-britains-books-by-theresa-mays-great-repeal-bill-new-research-shows/ Seriously, what is "Brexit" about that?
It's important for our leaders to maintain the illusion of democracy. Fortunately, some people are wising up to the fact that something is amiss with our own politicians in the UK. But, it's bigger than that: the bankers who run our lives and their people in the EU are also in on it. Democracy, domestically and in the EU, is little more than a sham and it will only get more shambolic while we fail to recognise the fact.
We need to stop reacting to what our politicians and their media mouth-pieces say and do something about what is actually happening. If we don't, the show will go on.
If you justify the existence of these people by voting, you can't complain.
Funny how all your 'predictions' bar Brexit, (which we already knew was happening), for 2017 were wrong though?
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:00 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
The two most popular ways people protest against their government (outside the ballot box) are:
a) general strike b) public disorder/civil unrest
One of these is really effective and grinds the country to a standstill, the other is really easy to infiltrate by the police and does little apart from increasing future policing powers and insurance premiums.
It's essentially a no-brainer but the British usually chose option b. Why? Because the public perceive that is what the government fears most because of articles in the Guardian like the one GB linked to.
It's very simple, giving your government increased policing and surveillance powers does not really hurt your government at all, in fact it's playing into their hands.
[Post edited 2 Dec 2018 11:00]
Tory governments have legislated heavily to restrict Trade Unions, the people have only recetly realised this is not in their interests. The British are monitored by CCTV more than any other people on the planet.
The bill Mrs May wants MP's to vote on next week specifically excludes workers and consumers rights.
That, coupled with attemtpst the tories made to bypass parliament after the Ref. should tell anyone how frail our 'democracy' really is. It started post '79, since then the media & schools have educated many to accept this is the way forward for the UK.
0
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:19 - Dec 2 with 4233 views
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:00 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
The two most popular ways people protest against their government (outside the ballot box) are:
a) general strike b) public disorder/civil unrest
One of these is really effective and grinds the country to a standstill, the other is really easy to infiltrate by the police and does little apart from increasing future policing powers and insurance premiums.
It's essentially a no-brainer but the British usually chose option b. Why? Because the public perceive that is what the government fears most because of articles in the Guardian like the one GB linked to.
It's very simple, giving your government increased policing and surveillance powers does not really hurt your government at all, in fact it's playing into their hands.
[Post edited 2 Dec 2018 11:00]
A General Strike is hugely difficult to organise and by no means guaranteed to be successful.
We are no longer an era when much of the British workforce are employed in strictly unionised heavy industry and mining. It isn't possible to bring the country's economy to a halt through a brief series of orchestrated ballots. It would essentially require pitching to every worker individually, particularly with the number of small businesses and self-employed. Plus there is no supporting finance structure for those who have walked out (and are thus not being paid).
In 1926, the only time a GS has been successfully launched, it pretty quickly collapsed (9 days) from lack of popular support, strike breaking and the government's ability to keep essential services running. The closest we came again, the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent, resulted in a reaction which brought the union-suppressing Margaret Thatcher to power. Not particularly promising precedent.
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:19 - Dec 2 by Guthrum
A General Strike is hugely difficult to organise and by no means guaranteed to be successful.
We are no longer an era when much of the British workforce are employed in strictly unionised heavy industry and mining. It isn't possible to bring the country's economy to a halt through a brief series of orchestrated ballots. It would essentially require pitching to every worker individually, particularly with the number of small businesses and self-employed. Plus there is no supporting finance structure for those who have walked out (and are thus not being paid).
In 1926, the only time a GS has been successfully launched, it pretty quickly collapsed (9 days) from lack of popular support, strike breaking and the government's ability to keep essential services running. The closest we came again, the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent, resulted in a reaction which brought the union-suppressing Margaret Thatcher to power. Not particularly promising precedent.
I guess it depends how furious you are with your government with respect to how far you are prepared to go.
The current French "gilet jaune" protest appears to be very effective, so effective in fact that the British media are largely misreporting it.
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:33 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
I guess it depends how furious you are with your government with respect to how far you are prepared to go.
The current French "gilet jaune" protest appears to be very effective, so effective in fact that the British media are largely misreporting it.
The French have quite a different culture of popular street protest to the UK (and a string of Parisian mob-led revolutions in their history).
Everybody would have to get pretty furious for a majority of the UK workforce to walk out and risk bankruptcy to protest. However, I think the next General Election could be quite interesting.
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:37 - Dec 2 by Guthrum
The French have quite a different culture of popular street protest to the UK (and a string of Parisian mob-led revolutions in their history).
Everybody would have to get pretty furious for a majority of the UK workforce to walk out and risk bankruptcy to protest. However, I think the next General Election could be quite interesting.
Why do you think France has a different culture of popular street protest? Don't give me examples of French protesting history, I'd like to know what it is about their character/culture you think makes them different.
It's time to discuss threats of on 12:06 - Dec 2 by Cheltenham_Blue
Now thats a fun challenge. However I'm too intelligent to bite on your rather churlish baiting.
CB: You're rubbish! CIL: This will be fun. Please give me three examples to demonstrate that I'm rubbish. CB: Nah, I'd prefer to sit here and watch how rubbish you are.
Mark Twain must have come across people like you.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
It's time to discuss threats of on 11:41 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
Why do you think France has a different culture of popular street protest? Don't give me examples of French protesting history, I'd like to know what it is about their character/culture you think makes them different.
To coin a phrase.......Balls!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Definitely if the first vote is overturned. This country had two major wars to protect democracy, if the first vote is overturned by those who want a dictatorship and don't want us to have democracy then the only option is civil unrest or even a civil war. We need to protect democracy at all costs.
-3
It's time to discuss threats of "civil disobedience" on 13:19 - Dec 2 with 3986 views
It's time to discuss threats of "civil disobedience" on 12:57 - Dec 2 by BloomBlue
Definitely if the first vote is overturned. This country had two major wars to protect democracy, if the first vote is overturned by those who want a dictatorship and don't want us to have democracy then the only option is civil unrest or even a civil war. We need to protect democracy at all costs.
Will it be Huawai v Apple?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
It's time to discuss threats of "civil disobedience" on 12:57 - Dec 2 by BloomBlue
Definitely if the first vote is overturned. This country had two major wars to protect democracy, if the first vote is overturned by those who want a dictatorship and don't want us to have democracy then the only option is civil unrest or even a civil war. We need to protect democracy at all costs.
Yep, civil war and civil disobedience in order to prevent the people having a vote is definitely a good way to protect democracy.
What an idiotic post.
2
It's time to discuss threats of on 13:38 - Dec 2 with 3959 views
It's time to discuss threats of on 12:14 - Dec 2 by caught-in-limbo
CB: You're rubbish! CIL: This will be fun. Please give me three examples to demonstrate that I'm rubbish. CB: Nah, I'd prefer to sit here and watch how rubbish you are.
Mark Twain must have come across people like you.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
