NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]

my partner and little girl were making fairy cakes with chocolate on the top today. Very nice they were too.

The funniest aspect is that he's explaining it to someone whose job it was to do exactly that.

It's like raaaeeeeaaaiiinnnnn on your wedding day . . .

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-cuts-10.11.10-London?p=11245166#post11245166

more of this please

ffs...

Wasn't aimed at you. Tried to put up Alanis on youtube and it was like "not available" and then i lost interest and swore.

is Alanis, like, your favorite late nite lady?

Yeah.

hairy muff

I don't think it's ever been more blunt-instrument like than Mayday 2001, when he was Gold, and he had the great plan to kettle everybody except the troublemakers.

Threats and intimidation are the basis of various specific offences, whereas the legislation was directed at all picketing, creating offences purely based the character of the assembly. The picketing which "remains perfectly legal" is the result of concessions won by earlier illegal industrial action.

Oh, and as I wasn't at all clear before: when I say criminalizing pickets I'm talking about the Combination Acts, the Statute of Artificers, and so on, not the 1980s.

even tho' I kinda get what d-b is getting at - i think

The point is that they don't use force on either side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow all sides to carry on their lawful business.

Yeah. The miners' strike footage shows exactly that.

In respect of (a) you're sort of right. I certainly don't recognise the "class struggle" as usually drawn as being at all relevant to modern society. But I am deeply concerned about differential wealth and the power that is associated with great wealth. So much of our societies problems can be traced back to the gap between the richest and the poorest and I would support anything which reduced that gap. Personally I would like to have a maximum cap on income (no-one is worth many millions of pounds a year) and a bar on inherited wealth (everyone should be born equal and should be responsible for living their own lives (if they are able) and certainly no-one should be able to live their lives in unbelievable luxury without having ever to work themselves). I appreciate that there are serious practical difficulties with both of these ... but would support anything which moved in that general direction.

In relation to (b) I am probably "pro-State" as I very much believe in the Rule Of Law (applied equally to all) as one of our greatest benefits as a society (this probably also explains my reference to the legal basis of issues) ... but I am most definitely not pro-establishment. I detest the "Great and the Good" who have politics, directorships, committees, quangos and every fucking thing else sewn-up and passed around between them. If I had stayed in the police, and continued to seek promotion, I would have become one of the "establishment" ... that was one reason I left - I had no desire to do that at all. Positions of responsibility / power within our society should always be based on merit - what you know, not who you know (and usually brownnose). And I am not pro-status quo at all - our society is pretty good overall but has some very bad aspects which need to be addressed as a matter of some urgency before they cause more damage.

You may have an argument there (though there are counter arguments about the nature of the process and what exactly was being "decided") ... but if there is an issue it should be resolved through some legal or other process and not through the use of force.

The State enforces the vast majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.

To be fair, I'm not at all sure that his plan was to contain "everyone except the troublemakers" - the fact that a significant number were missed was due to the fact that (a) they don't wear badges (bastards - life would be much easier for everyone if they did!) and (b) live intelligence gathering about who was, who wasn't and where thet were wasn't perfect.

I would certainly agree that the laws went further than they needed to address the threats and intimidation aspect and that their is scope to allow more robust picketing than is currently the case.

You miss the point - the threat of force is always there. It's what the state ultimately relies on.

It's batshit nuts finding yourself having to explain that to someone who was employed in the position of upholding the law.

How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?

So the miners should have just rolled over and allowed thatcher and co to destroy their communities and economies?

Jeeeeezuz - is this still going on?

Have I taken the opportunity to welcome you back yet, you fucking loon?

lol, jesus, this is astounding stuff. I wouldn't expect a 14 year old Government & Politics student to say anything as stupidly naive as this.

Yes, dear, they do, but only with the threat of force behind it. That's wht you were there for, the threat of force.

Anyone who uses a phase like 'the sensible left' obviusly has no interest in it (the 'left') or understanding of it.

If I'd said that someone would have asked me to add "IMO".

Well, that might be your opinion...