Or does he really think that the “walk” wasn’t a “protest” in the normal meaning of the word?
Some of us, Tom included it seems, are not so hypnotised by the consequences of the battle vs terrorism, that we have allowed the language to be distorted as Bob has:
pro⋅test [n. proh-test; v. pruh-test, proh-test]
–noun
1. an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.
Most of us lightheartedly celebrate the defeat of Guy Fawkes and his terrorists; mock tory trolls object to restrictions on those who might ape him.
Our political system isn’t broke, the Mr Fixits imagine they are on the make, stupidly ignoring that the narrative they run with is spun by the Billionaire’s Press and the Billionaires Party (run by their multi-millionaires Chameleon & Osborne) in Their interests.
If they don’t like the way this country is run after the next GE (Fourth in a row) I suggest they leave. Our membership of the EU should make their range of effective choice easier than it would be otherwise.
We will shortly have a reminder of what protest and direct action can achieve.
20 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, brought down by public disobedience and protest. This was not some spontaneous arising, the signs were there earlier, riots and disobedience.
This country is moving in the direction of East Germany in terms of surveillance, the State’s suspicion of the citizen, the draconian laws invoked in the name of “terrorism” and the suppression of dissent and protest.
It is certainly not true to say we are there already, but we are a couple of steps away: the invocation of civil contingencies act is one possible scenario that could result in electoral disenfranchsement. Only mass action could stop this (and the UK state, as in East Germany, could not stop this action).
So, gestures of defiance by Old Holborn’s stroll are a useful reminder of the nature of defiance, and an outlet for those of us sickened by MPs’ behaviour over expenses and lack of scrutiny of the quagmire of Afghanistan.
There you go again, Fraser. If you had half the principles you claim to have, you would not be responding to me.
Thus, you’re either lying or have low personal standards (or both).
I made numerous explicit references to the SIF and the Iranian Ambassador, and your response was bottom-scraping sarcasm and to accuse me of tin-foillery. Now, like a cartoon character who’s sawn off the supporting branch, you’re dangling in the air wondering why there’s nothing under your bottom.
I would have thought the LibDems’ new girl, saucy baggage Anna Ashworth, would have been quite good at thinking up a neat slogan. She’s got form in dreaming up titles for her films. They’re usually quite snappy and based around puns aren’t they? Not that I know anything about that sort of thing, obviously
Why do politicians think the population are too thick to take on board detail?
I guess the spin doctors got there first. Be snappy, be hip, be horizontal, be smart.
No we don’t want it, we want some honesty, not soundbites, that is you pandering to the Media. What about the rest of the 60 odd million in the country?
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 8:52 am
Any of the fools who accuse Labour Ministers of lying like to take the Nutt test?
Smoke some cigarrettes and then drive round an empty car park. Then smoke some marijhuana and repeat.
We would soon see how much safer the latter is.
Nutt was trying to make popular propaganda and got caught. He rightly forfeited the Home Sec’s confidence.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 9:03 am
How did Bob get into 2009?
Via endless revisits to 1984?
Or does he really think that the “walk” wasn’t a “protest” in the normal meaning of the word?
Some of us, Tom included it seems, are not so hypnotised by the consequences of the battle vs terrorism, that we have allowed the language to be distorted as Bob has:
pro⋅test [n. proh-test; v. pruh-test, proh-test]
–noun
1. an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.
Most of us lightheartedly celebrate the defeat of Guy Fawkes and his terrorists; mock tory trolls object to restrictions on those who might ape him.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 9:50 am
Apologies for the accusation Tom.
I would still be intrigued to hear my query addressed.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 10:15 am
MPs work incredibly hard for their money.
Why, some of them have got five jobs. One has TEN, apparently.
That might be why protestations of being underpaid for what they do often fail to illicit as much sympathy as MPs would like.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 10:30 am
Our political system isn’t broke, the Mr Fixits imagine they are on the make, stupidly ignoring that the narrative they run with is spun by the Billionaire’s Press and the Billionaires Party (run by their multi-millionaires Chameleon & Osborne) in Their interests.
If they don’t like the way this country is run after the next GE (Fourth in a row) I suggest they leave. Our membership of the EU should make their range of effective choice easier than it would be otherwise.
Freedom and all that.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 11:42 am
We will shortly have a reminder of what protest and direct action can achieve.
20 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, brought down by public disobedience and protest. This was not some spontaneous arising, the signs were there earlier, riots and disobedience.
This country is moving in the direction of East Germany in terms of surveillance, the State’s suspicion of the citizen, the draconian laws invoked in the name of “terrorism” and the suppression of dissent and protest.
It is certainly not true to say we are there already, but we are a couple of steps away: the invocation of civil contingencies act is one possible scenario that could result in electoral disenfranchsement. Only mass action could stop this (and the UK state, as in East Germany, could not stop this action).
So, gestures of defiance by Old Holborn’s stroll are a useful reminder of the nature of defiance, and an outlet for those of us sickened by MPs’ behaviour over expenses and lack of scrutiny of the quagmire of Afghanistan.
Saturday 7 November 2009 at 11:43 am
There you go again, Fraser. If you had half the principles you claim to have, you would not be responding to me.
Thus, you’re either lying or have low personal standards (or both).
I made numerous explicit references to the SIF and the Iranian Ambassador, and your response was bottom-scraping sarcasm and to accuse me of tin-foillery. Now, like a cartoon character who’s sawn off the supporting branch, you’re dangling in the air wondering why there’s nothing under your bottom.
You are a Know Nothing.
PS Sophistry doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Friday 12 March 2010 at 4:43 pm
Well, You got to be INNIT to win it!
Friday 12 March 2010 at 6:20 pm
I would have thought the LibDems’ new girl, saucy baggage Anna Ashworth, would have been quite good at thinking up a neat slogan. She’s got form in dreaming up titles for her films. They’re usually quite snappy and based around puns aren’t they? Not that I know anything about that sort of thing, obviously
Friday 12 March 2010 at 10:39 pm
Why do politicians think the population are too thick to take on board detail?
I guess the spin doctors got there first. Be snappy, be hip, be horizontal, be smart.
No we don’t want it, we want some honesty, not soundbites, that is you pandering to the Media. What about the rest of the 60 odd million in the country?
Leave a comment