Chatham House report indicates 'significant support' among far-right for 'planned attacks'

Aye, there are some I would shed no tears to see popping their cloggs, but never at the hands of murderers, no matter what their perusasion or grievance, in a properly constituted democracy (even an imperfect one) that is. Syria, for instance, is a different matter

In this country it is more the threat of economic violence as opposed to physical.

Is it? How do the police do their job then?

Badly, in many cases, but in the main? by consent.

Are you stupid?

Since when does silent agreement constitute appreciation? It doesn't even constitute endorsement, you arse-nugget!

"its a fair cop guvnor, I'll come quietly"

Violence already plays a part in the democratic political process, you arse! You don't seem to have too many problems with the state putting the boot in!

TBF, you could easily leave off the last 7 words above, given how often the act is resorted to by the state.

Perhaps I am? mebbes not just intelligent enough to appreciate the fine distinction between your use of 'tactic agreement' and myself thinking that if I was in tactic agreement with something then I would probably appreciate the sentiment or action.

I have every objection to the state putting the boot in, where putting said boot in is inappropiate that is.

Conversely, you might see what was done as painful but necessary. That's hardly a "fine distinction", it's a fucking gaping chasm away from your characterisation.

And who gets to actually decide what is and isn't inappropriate.....Yep, that's right...the State!!

Who decides what is appropriate?

I would never regard Killing someone I disagree with as "painful but necessary"
Put it this way,even at the height of the miners stike I would never have "tacitly agreed with" endorsed or had sympathy with or appreciation of Maggie being murdered.

Aye the state, of which we are all part, if we choose to be sheep we shouldnt cry our eyes out when our apathy is taken advantage of.

If by consent you mean "because we vote them in, one party or t'other", that's not really consent as Locke meant it, is it?

You keep introducing new criteria. Previously it was "appreciation", now it's "killing someone I disagree with".
To get back "on topic", I'd say that Neave's death was "painful but necessary". His history, and the influence he had over certain of Thatcher's circle, meant that he was highly unlikely to have been pragmatic about negotiation with irish republicans. I'd contend that had he lived, Thatcher would VERY likely have taken a harder line than she did over Northern Ireland.

We're not part of the state, and whenever we choose not to be sheep they assault and/or murder us.

It's a tricky one.
Given human nature having the means of violence fairly heavily restricted to agents of the state and those agents quite heavily restrained. Regardless of what you might think lethal force employed by the state is not routine it always makes headlines and is investigated.

Much as certain activists complain the state is not in the habit of killing protestors to claim otherwise is lieing.

I don't think anyone did claim that.

Depends on your interpretation of Locke doesnt it? same applies to your post 168

No it doesn't.

Thats a huge assumption to justify someones murder

How about just 'painful' then - that'll do me.

Whey, we got the odd hiding during the strike but I cant remember many of us being taken away to the gulags to be 'disposed of'

Nope. It really doesn't. Have a think about what you're saying.

In reality, if we choose to live in this country then we have to accept being part of the state.

No we don't.

Ah, so now we've moved on from "killing someone I disagree with" to "justifying someones murder".

None of which I've said.

And my assumption (because yes, I did make one) isn't huge, it's entirely consonant with what was known of Neave's opinions and his position at the time. This wasn't a man who believed in doing things by the book, this was a man who believed in stamping on those whom he didn't agree with, whether that was British trade unionists or Irish republicans, and he had enough sway with Thatcher's inner circle to have carried that opinion into her policies.