Robin, there is a difference between voting for no-hope candidates
(like the Greens)

Ah, so they're allowed to vote to express their opinions, but you admit
that they are voting for people with no chance of electoral success.
They therefore have no hope of being represented in the political
system and voting doesn't really offer them a chance to influence the
running of the country. Boltar said in his reply to me "I'm sick of
these so called activists who seem to think the voting booth isn't good
enough for them". Well I'd suggest that in actual fact the voting booth
isn't good enough for them, because they have no hope of electing a
candidate who would represent their political views.

or out-and-out morons (like the B.N.P.)

I doubt those protesters would ever consider voting for the BNP.

on the
one had, which is everyone's democratic right,

So it's everybody's democratic right to cast votes which, being
realistic, have no hope of influencing government. What a wonderful
right that is!


Robin, you have to take the rough with the smooth. I rather suspect that,
overall, in the U.K. parties like the B.N.P. would enjoy as much electoral
support as the Greens. Now, the Greens might be seen as a respectable party (if
rather naive perhaps) and therefore be tolerated by decent-minded people, were
we to have, for example, proprtional representation in Parliament. But, would
you be so tolerant of the B.N.P. or National Front?

Or is it a case of the "right-on" politically-correct parties being more equal
than the nasty fascists?

and causing
law-abiding folk massive disruption when trying to get to or from
work.

I'd point out that the law is a human creation and if laws have been
passed to remove from them the one form of political expression that
might actually get their views noticed, then it's them who we should
probably be sympathising with. Not the law abiding folk trying to get
to or from work who are caused a slight inconvenience on one day but
enjoy some kind of ideological representation in the House of Commons.

If these people don't like arms fairs, or even arms manufacturers, their
options are (a) make arms fairs and/or manufacturers illegal - by Parliamentary
democratic means (although, I suspect, the tens of thousands that are employed
in this Country in arms manufacture might have an equally vociferous opposite
viewpoint) or (b) demonstrate (if they must) in a way that brings their
viewpoint to the attention of either politicians or arms traders - but NOT so
as to inconvenience the rest of us who neither support nor oppose arms fairs -
but who just happen to live and work in London.

Personally I'd just treat the former with disdain,

Ah, so even if they express themselves by being good little girls and
boys and casting a useless vote you think badly of them.

Don't be so peurile: if their vote is "useless" that is because hardly anyone
else agrees with them - that is hardly my fault. I don't think badly of them
for so voting - that is their right - but I do think that certains parties are
useless - on both extremes of the political spectrum. I hardly think I am
unusual in that regard.

but as
for the latter I'd throw whatever the law allows at them.

Stalin had the right idea, didn't he?

I despise demonstrations and demonstrators: I liken it and them to
mass-bullying and bullies. If the law allows violent and disruptive
demonstrators to be stopped, searched and arrested, then so be it. If you (or
anyone else) doesn't like those laws, then the solution lies in the ballot box.



Marc.