| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
The fetaured link states:-
" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down. This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work. If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one." Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is more evil than Saddam. Just WHAT are they trying to stop Bush form doing? Presumably they'd like to have Saddam back - George Galloway eat your heart out! And don't forget that Ken will be spending our hard--earned taxes on entertaining some of these "anti Bush/ Blair" no-hopers! Pity those of us trying to EARN a living and trying to get around the City, instead of planning and going on demonstrations that will achieve absolutely nothing. Load of timewasters - a pox on all their houses. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. "Mait001" wrote in message ... The fetaured link states:- " March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down. This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work. If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one." Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is more evil than Saddam. Just WHAT are they trying to stop Bush form doing? Presumably they'd like to have Saddam back - George Galloway eat your heart out! And don't forget that Ken will be spending our hard--earned taxes on entertaining some of these "anti Bush/ Blair" no-hopers! Pity those of us trying to EARN a living and trying to get around the City, instead of planning and going on demonstrations that will achieve absolutely nothing. Load of timewasters - a pox on all their houses. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has threatened to do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that is). Those so quick to condemn Bush (and with him everything that America stands for) should recall, especially during Remembrancetide, that it is highly unlikely that we would be living in anything like the relative peace and security we now have, following the Allies' victory in World War Two, without the Americans' support in Europe and the Far East. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has threatened to do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that is). No, but his father did, in Gulf War I - depleted Uranium. Hussein fired first, yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the US is the only coutnry in the world to have used nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That's a damn sight more evidence than Hans Blix ever claimed to have found in Iraq. Those so quick to condemn Bush (and with him everything that America stands for) Thank you for that typical conservative kneejerk reaction. Condemning the man is condemning neither the office nor the state - you're a lawyer, you're intelligent, so why do you insist on misunderstanding that? The circumstances under which George Bush won the 2000 election are at best dubious, and I find both his domestic policy (tax cuts for the rich, while millions go without health insurance) and his foreign policy (refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty, and flouting the UN and other international bodies) despicable. He scares me more than Saddam ever did, because - while I would never accuse Bush of being anywhere near as evil as Hussein - he is a hell of a lot more powerful. should recall, especially during Remembrancetide, that it is highly unlikely that we would be living in anything like the relative peace and security we now have, following the Allies' victory in World War Two, without the Americans' support in Europe and the Far East. I agree, and am grateful. I don't see what that's got to do with the current situation though. If someone saved me from being mugged, grateful as I'd be, I would still be pretty irritated if they dragged me into a brawl ten minute s later. Defend George Bush, by all means, but please don't be so condescending to those of us who can't stand the man. Jonn |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
... "Mait001" wrote in message ... I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of Mass Destruction. And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has threatened to do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that is). No, but his father did, in Gulf War I - depleted Uranium. I should point out, before anyone jumps on the obvious point, that I was not intending to deny that Saddam was an "evil dictator", merely that I phrased that point badly. Bush Snr did, however, use WMDs in Iraq in 1991 - and it wasn't the evil dictator that they hit, but his army, many of whom were terrified conscripts who would no doubt have been glad to see the back of their country's leader. And probably would have done, had the US backed the rebellions that happened after the war ended instead of stepping back. Jonn |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Jonn, I appreciate the senitments you express, but I would suggest that the
vast majority of those who demonstrate next week, and did so on the previous marches, are the usual anti-capitalist rent-a-demo anarchists who despise America for a number of disparate reasons, and would demonstrate against Bush even if he'd just found a painless cure for World poverty. People like Pat Arrowsmith who actually disrupted the Court in which I was appearing at Highgate two days ago. She started hurling verbal abuse at the District Judge and her no-hope supporters in the public gallery started to join in. What an appalling shower. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... Jonn, I appreciate the senitments you express, but I would suggest that the vast majority of those who demonstrate next week, and did so on the previous marches, are the usual anti-capitalist rent-a-demo anarchists who despise America for a number of disparate reasons, and would demonstrate against Bush even if he'd just found a painless cure for World poverty. I agree that there is a significant bandwagon affect - it scared the crap out of me commuting through Westminster the day the war started, and I was against it. However, I think the scale of protests planned do suggest something about a significant feeling against George Bush personally - you notice that Clinton (who was hardly whiter than white - ask the Sudanese) was never greeted in this way. If Bush had solved world poverty, this wouldn't be happening; but he is seen as a warmongering economic elitist. Basically, I think we're looking at an anti-war movement that happens to include some anti-capitalists rather than the mob of anarchists you describe. (I don't even think all the anti-capitalists are of the same ilk - a lot of them will be for fair (rather than free) trade, and not the complete breakdown of global capitalisation and the rule of law.) People like Pat Arrowsmith who actually disrupted the Court in which I was appearing at Highgate two days ago. She started hurling verbal abuse at the District Judge and her no-hope supporters in the public gallery started to join in. What an appalling shower. I don't disagree that some of the anti-war movement - as with any movement of any size - are going to be over the top, selfish, or unpleasant. The case you describe sounds particularly unpleasant, and I appreciate that it must have been quite nasty to see. There are better ways to protest. However, I do think it's disingenous to tar everyone with the same brush. Protest is a part of a healthy democracy. I also wish that London wasn't going to grind to a halt next week, but I'd much rather have seen the President take the hint and cancel the visit than I would people stay quiet on global issues that they feel so strongly about. There's a quote about "all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I can't remember for the life of me who said it. Jonn |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Basically, I think we're looking at an anti-war movement that happens to
include some anti-capitalists rather than the mob of anarchists you describe. (I don't even think all the anti-capitalists are of the same ilk - a lot of them will be for fair (rather than free) trade, and not the complete breakdown of global capitalisation and the rule of law.) I'm not quite sure what "war" they are against actually. If they simply want American and British (and the poor Italians) to leave Iraq immediately, I wouldn't actually be against that: the life of one British soldier is worth more to me than all the Iraquis they are actually helping. If they are not welcome, bring them home - I am content that the htreat posed by Saddam is gone. It will be a long time before Iraq is a threat to World security again. But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I doubt if they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers. They are just using this as an excuse to vaunt their hatred of Bush, America and whatever else they dislike. Protest is a part of a healthy democracy. I do not agree with ANY protest that disrupts the lives of ordinary people going about their lawful business. but I'd much rather have seen the President take the hint and cancel the visit Actually, it was an idiotic decision of Blair to advise The Queen to invite Bush on this State Visit at this time. It would be discourteous (and an unwarranted victory for the people about whom I have been writing) for Bush to cancel the visit now, but I agree that the invitation should not have been given at this particular juncture. There's a quote about "all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I can't remember for the life of me who said it. I know the quote, can't remember who said it, but have used it myself on several occasions, to justify the war in Iraq! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... I'm not quite sure what "war" they are against actually. If they simply want American and British (and the poor Italians) to leave Iraq immediately, I wouldn't actually be against that: the life of one British soldier is worth more to me than all the Iraquis they are actually helping. Why should an Iraqi life - not that of a Ba'ath party member, but an ordinary person, a doctor say - be worth less than that of a British soldier? The protests during the war did an important job in demonstrating to the world that, despite how it may sometimes appear, the UK does not risk Arab lives lightly. They helped ensure that the country did not appear to be a hawkish monolith to be feared; they reminded the world that British people can still give a damn about the well-being of other nations. The protests next week will do a similar thing in demonstrating to the US government, and others, that while Blair may be solidly with Bush, the mass of the British people aren't. If it looked like noone cared, it would make it easier for terrorist groups to demonize the British people as bloodthirsty warmongers. Protests can show the world that that's now true. If they are not welcome, bring them home - I am content that the htreat posed by Saddam is gone. It will be a long time before Iraq is a threat to World security again. I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is. But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I doubt if they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers. I'd be surprised if you were right, but I don't think either of us can speak authoritatively on that one. They are just using this as an excuse to vaunt their hatred of Bush, America and whatever else they dislike. To an extent - the first of those three certainly. But as I said earlier... Protest is a part of a healthy democracy. I stand by that. In a way, it applies to all governments. Do you think people would remember what happened to dissenters in China without Tiannaman Square? I do not agree with ANY protest that disrupts the lives of ordinary people going about their lawful business. I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too, though given the abysmal lack of codefied civil rights in this country I'm quite prepared for your legal training to tell me otherwise. At any rate, the majority of any protesters aren't looking to do anything illegal - but to protest against a man who has broken international law repeatedly over the last three years. but I'd much rather have seen the President take the hint and cancel the visit Actually, it was an idiotic decision of Blair to advise The Queen to invite Bush on this State Visit at this time. It would be discourteous (and an unwarranted victory for the people about whom I have been writing) for Bush to cancel the visit now, but I agree that the invitation should not have been given at this particular juncture. I agree with you there too. I'll steer clear of constitutional issues, or we really will get bogged down in this debate... There's a quote about "all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I can't remember for the life of me who said it. I know the quote, can't remember who said it, but have used it myself on several occasions, to justify the war in Iraq! I looked it up, it's Burke. I take your point on using it to justify the war, though - my objections were more about the way it was handled than the idea of removing Saddam. Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive. Jonn |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
Jonn, I hope you got my reply to your e-mail: something odd happened to my
computer when I tried to send it. Why should an Iraqi life - not that of a Ba'ath party member, but an ordinary person, a doctor say - be worth less than that of a British soldier? In general I agree, but I was merely pointing out that, as might seem to be the case, that if the Iraqis don't actually WANT our help to rebuild their country, then it's not worth risking our soldiers' and charity workers' etc. lives to force it on them. The protests during the war did an important job in demonstrating to the world that, despite how it may sometimes appear, the UK does not risk Arab lives lightly. They helped ensure that the country did not appear to be a hawkish monolith to be feared; they reminded the world that British people can still give a damn about the well-being of other nations. I rather think the exemplary conduct of Her Majesty's forces did a better job of showing the Iraqis (and the wider World) that we were not just involved in Iraq to get something out of it (which seems to be the suggestion about and criticism of the Americans - which I do not accept, but I do accept H.M. forces are far better at this sort of activity than the Americans). The protests next week will do a similar thing in demonstrating to the US government, and others, that while Blair may be solidly with Bush, the mass of the British people aren't. A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people". If it looked like noone cared, it would make it easier for terrorist groups to demonize the British people as bloodthirsty warmongers. Protests can show the world that that's now true. I rather doubt that the suicide bombers and terrorists of the World will give a fig about demonstrators in London showing what jolly good chaps the Brits are and that we therefore ought to be excluded from their next terror campaign. I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is. Again, I agree that morally we have a duty to finish what we started, but not if the cost is many British deaths. Legally, in England, you owe a duty of care to someone only if you act, i.e. if you see someone drowning, there is no legal duty to try and save him, and certainly not it will risk drowning you both. But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I doubt if they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers. I'd be surprised if you were right, but I don't think either of us can speak authoritatively on that one. What I meant was, I suspect that the right-thinking people amongst the demonstrators would take the view that you have expressed: we have a duty to carry on with what we started, albeit they did not think we should have started it in the first place. I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too It is lawful, which is why the Police have said it will be allowed - but that is not to say it is right, and I do not think any demonstration that affects others' daily lives should be lawful. At any rate, the majority of any protesters aren't looking to do anything illegal - but to protest against a man who has broken international law repeatedly over the last three years. It is not illegal, but an impertinence by people who seemingly have nothing better to do with their time or money than disrupt the lives of those of us who work and pay taxes to finance those very people. Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive. A few million Jews and others might have been spared if pre-emptive action had been taken against Hitler. I omitted to reply to your interesting previous comment about being grateful to the Americans for World War Two help, but that not meaning they should be exempt from criticism now. Of course, that is right, but I was simply making the point, against all the America-haters, that generally speaking America has been a good ally of this Country and more often than not, a force for good in the World. Just my opinion. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Anyone here know who is organising the march?
I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip with all the resulting problems that causes. I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of the march a bill for my time and inconvenience. Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. Find me an actionable defendant, with sufficient funds to satisfy a judgement and costs, and I will draft the pleadings for you free of charge! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Jonn Elledge wrote:
I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is. ....or as we used to say in motorsport, "you bend it, you mend it" :-) |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people". If everyone who opposed the war turned up in london to protest, what you'd essentially have is an uprising. I believe the polls currently stand at a majority opposed. Not quite the isolated group of lefties you like to portray the oppsers of war as. For feelings to run this strong despite what the government and some media outlets would like is pretty indicative of deeply held convictions, IMO. We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls suggest a majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do not believe to be the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls to which you refer?) does not mean that they all feel so strongly about it that they wish to disrupt the lives of ordinary people trying to go about their normal business in London. And, don't believe everything the pro-Saddam (the prime culprit being the B.B.C.) media tells you. It is not illegal, but an impertinence by people who seemingly have nothing better to do with their time or money than disrupt the lives of those of us who work and pay taxes to finance those very people. An impertinence? Thank god for those "impertinent" people who have the temerity to speak out for what they believe is right. I suppose Rosa Parks, the suffragettes, etc were also impertinent? I do not distinguish what the cause is: I take grave exception to the European Union and wish it (as a concept) nothing but harm and distress, but I would not even take these deeply-held beliefs to such an extent that I would impose inconvenience on Londoners by disrupting their activities just to show my strength of feeling. Anyway this is all OT. See you in london. ;) Not if I can help it! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... Jonn, I hope you got my reply to your e-mail: something odd happened to my computer when I tried to send it. I got it, don't worry... Why should an Iraqi life - not that of a Ba'ath party member, but an ordinary person, a doctor say - be worth less than that of a British soldier? In general I agree, but I was merely pointing out that, as might seem to be the case, that if the Iraqis don't actually WANT our help to rebuild their country, then it's not worth risking our soldiers' and charity workers' etc. lives to force it on them. On Wednesday I heard a BBC journalist who spent the summer in Iraq make a speech. He said that he thinks that a large portion of the Iraqis he met were still grateful that Saddam's been removed. I think it would be irresponsible to let a terrorist minority get between the coalition and its duty to rebuild what it helped to destroy. I was fairly suspicious of the war, if not actively against it, but now we're there I think we should stay put until Iraq is a democracy. And certainly at least until we've fixed the water and the electricity! The protests during the war did an important job in demonstrating to the world that, despite how it may sometimes appear, the UK does not risk Arab lives lightly. They helped ensure that the country did not appear to be a hawkish monolith to be feared; they reminded the world that British people can still give a damn about the well-being of other nations. I rather think the exemplary conduct of Her Majesty's forces did a better job of showing the Iraqis (and the wider World) that we were not just involved in Iraq to get something out of it I never really thought we were only there to get something out of it - I think Blair wanted to go to war because he honestly believed there were WMDs. I also believe he was mistaken about that. But anyway, back to the mai n point... I think it's paradoxically good PR for the government to have had the protests taking place. They remind the world that one of the key things about Western democracy - somethign Iraq has been deprived of - is free speech (not to mention free assembly). I agree this would have been rendered meaningless if the army had gone in there and screwed up, so you're right that their conduct was key. (It was a hell of a lot better than the US Army's - I mean, junior officers draping the Stars and Stripes over toppled statues? Please). (which seems to be the suggestion about and criticism of the Americans - which I do not accept, but I do accept H.M. forces are far better at this sort of activity than the Americans). Agreed. The protests next week will do a similar thing in demonstrating to the US government, and others, that while Blair may be solidly with Bush, the mass of the British people aren't. A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people". You don't get that many people turning out for a protest unless many more agree with them, simply because most people (and I'm ashamed to admit I'm one of them) never get off their backsides to do something so actively. They may not represent a majority, but they certainly represent a significant minority. Apart from anything, polls released today show that the majority in Britain is against Bush and his handling of Iraq. If it looked like noone cared, it would make it easier for terrorist groups to demonize the British people as bloodthirsty warmongers. Protests can show the world that that's now true. I rather doubt that the suicide bombers and terrorists of the World will give a fig about demonstrators in London showing what jolly good chaps the Brits are and that we therefore ought to be excluded from their next terror campaign. But people don't just become terrorists at random. They do it in reaction to what they perceive as injustices, however warped their perceptions may be. Some of the root causes of terrorism are in the perception of Western foreign policy. So while I agree that Al-Quieda isn't going to back off when they see that the British people are nice chaps really, I believe that protests could make people think twice about joining the terrorists. I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is. Again, I agree that morally we have a duty to finish what we started, but not if the cost is many British deaths. Legally, in England, you owe a duty of care to someone only if you act, i.e. if you see someone drowning, there is no legal duty to try and save him, and certainly not it will risk drowning you both. Yes, but what if you pushed them in in the first place? I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too It is lawful, which is why the Police have said it will be allowed - but that is not to say it is right, and I do not think any demonstration that affects others' daily lives should be lawful. There we're just going to have to disagree. I'd rather live in a state that allowed protests than one that didn't, because it's a reminder of popular freedoms, and proof that we're not living in a police state. Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive. A few million Jews and others might have been spared if pre-emptive action had been taken against Hitler. Point taken, although I'm not sure the situations were entirely comparable because of the much more limited range of Saddam's influence. I omitted to reply to your interesting previous comment about being grateful to the Americans for World War Two help, but that not meaning they should be exempt from criticism now. Of course, that is right, but I was simply making the point, against all the America-haters, that generally speaking America has been a good ally of this Country and more often than not, a force for good in the World. Just my opinion. I think that, like most countries, the US has done some great things. It's also done some pretty appalling things - sanctions on Cuba, the bombing of a Sudanese facility manufacturing medicine to protect US patents, the removal of an elected government in Chile in 1973. It's also given the world some great things - not least the ideas explicitly laid down in its constitution. The risk is that people get so bogged down in the ideals of America - freedom, justice, democracy - that they forget that its actions sometimes go against what it is supposed to stand for. I don't hate America. I think it's one of the most fascinating countries on Earth, and has at times been a fantastic force for good. But it's vital that we never stp questioning and scrutinising it - or any other state, company or idea, come to that. That's what democratic public debate should be all about. Jonn |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Mait001" wrote in message
... A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people". If everyone who opposed the war turned up in london to protest, what you'd essentially have is an uprising. I believe the polls currently stand at a majority opposed. Not quite the isolated group of lefties you like to portray the oppsers of war as. For feelings to run this strong despite what the government and some media outlets would like is pretty indicative of deeply held convictions, IMO. We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls suggest a majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do not believe to be the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls to which you refer?) There are some at the bottom of this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...on/7248104.htm And, don't believe everything the pro-Saddam (the prime culprit being the B.B.C.) media tells you. Please don't reduce the level of argument to "everyone who opposes the war is pro-Saddam". It's reductive, it's inaccurate, and you can (and have) come up with better arguments. An impertinence? Thank god for those "impertinent" people who have the temerity to speak out for what they believe is right. I suppose Rosa Parks, the suffragettes, etc were also impertinent? I do not distinguish what the cause is: I take grave exception to the European Union and wish it (as a concept) nothing but harm and distress, but I would not even take these deeply-held beliefs to such an extent that I would impose inconvenience on Londoners by disrupting their activities just to show my strength of feeling. That's your democratic right to feel that way. Others choose to exercise their rights in different ways, such as through peaceful* protest. I'm sorry that you feel inconvenienced, but as I've stated before I'd rather live in a society that allowed such shows of popular feeling than one that repressed them - such as Saddam's Iraq... Jonn *I am aware of how ridiculous I'm going to look if troublemakers at the protest attempt to firebomb Bush or something... |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Pleadings"?
Are you a bloody yank? "Mait001" wrote in message ... Anyone here know who is organising the march? I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip with all the resulting problems that causes. I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of the march a bill for my time and inconvenience. Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. Find me an actionable defendant, with sufficient funds to satisfy a judgement and costs, and I will draft the pleadings for you free of charge! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
On 13 Nov 2003 11:45:21 -0800, (Privacy Trap)
wrote: Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. I commute to Waterloo to work every day. On Thursday, however, I shall commute to the starting point of the demo instead. I live and work and pay my taxes in London, so I'll be dammed if someone tells me I shouldn't attend a demo in my own city. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I too live, work and pay my taxes in London. I'll be equally damned if
people like you through your demonstrations try to stop me going about my normal business because of your assumptions and opinions about Bush. As much as you may support the feelings against him please recognise that there are many in this country who have the opposite opinion. Robert Griffith "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... On 13 Nov 2003 11:45:21 -0800, (Privacy Trap) wrote: Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. I commute to Waterloo to work every day. On Thursday, however, I shall commute to the starting point of the demo instead. I live and work and pay my taxes in London, so I'll be dammed if someone tells me I shouldn't attend a demo in my own city. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"rob" wrote the following in:
I too live, work and pay my taxes in London. I'll be equally damned if people like you through your demonstrations try to stop me going about my normal business because of your assumptions and opinions about Bush. As much as you may support the feelings against him please recognise that there are many in this country who have the opposite opinion. Robert Griffith I thought it was Bush who was demanding the whole city got closed down. Why is no one saying any of this "I have a right to go about my business" stuff about him? Anyway, is this protest really going to stop anyone going about their business anyway? I bet it won't affect me. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Pleadings"?
Are you a bloody yank? No, "pleadings" is the word used by ENGLISH lawyers to describe documents used to commence and continue proceedings in the civil Courts in England and Wales. The term covers a multiplicity of documents including Particulars of Claim, Defence, Counterclaim, Part 23 Claims and many others. So glad to light your way out of ignorance. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Adequate proof that you didn't witness the 1 million-strong demo a few
months back. The snobbishly-worded stereotupes you describe made up a tiny fraction of those in attendence, the vast majority of whom covered all aspects of the social and political spectrum. Looking at the country as a whole, it's clearly bitter Bush-apologists like you who are the marginalised minority. -- Nick Cooper Oh and what an oppressed, marginalised minority I feel! Get me the number for The Samaritans .... Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
I thought it was Bush who was demanding the whole city got closed down.
Why is no one saying any of this "I have a right to go about my business" stuff about him? Anyway, is this protest really going to stop anyone going about their business anyway? I bet it won't affect me. If Bush's advisers are making the demands you suggest, it can only be because they have leigitimate concerns that, if the demonstrators got anywhere near Bush (who is, whether you like it or not, an INVITED GUEST in this Country) they will do to him what some have already stated they will be doing to his statue. It seems to me that those who are demonstrating should be doing so primarily against Blair, at whose suggestion the invitation was made. Once that invitation has been given, you can hardly blame Bush for accepting it, and then wishing his safety to be secured. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
Mait001 wrote:
Anyone here know who is organising the march? I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip with all the resulting problems that causes. I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of the march a bill for my time and inconvenience. Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. Find me an actionable defendant, with sufficient funds to satisfy a judgement and costs, and I will draft the pleadings for you free of charge! Marc. And which group of disrupters are you going to take on next? Football clubs? Pop groups? The Lord Mayor of London? The Stop Bush march, like sporting, entertainment and pageantry events, are legal and we just have to put up with the inconvenience that they cause. Matthew |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Plonker.
"Mait001" wrote in message ... "Pleadings"? Are you a bloody yank? No, "pleadings" is the word used by ENGLISH lawyers to describe documents used to commence and continue proceedings in the civil Courts in England and Wales. The term covers a multiplicity of documents including Particulars of Claim, Defence, Counterclaim, Part 23 Claims and many others. So glad to light your way out of ignorance. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Nick" wrote in message ... Plonker. Pity your contribution is limited to "plonker" and "are you a bloody Yank"! |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Well, I ask you.
People are allowed to demonstrate aren't they? They may be a bunch of wishy-washy liberals and twits, but they still have democratic rights. As it happens I'm going to be in the West End on Wednesday and I'll do my best to ignore them. What ticks me off is those CIA goons demanding streets to be closed off around Grosvenor Square. How am I supposed to get to my tailor's dammit? "rob" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... Plonker. Pity your contribution is limited to "plonker" and "are you a bloody Yank"! |
The UK march agaimst Bush
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:32:38 -0000, "rob" wrote:
[Outlook mis-formatting corrected] "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... On 13 Nov 2003 11:45:21 -0800, (Privacy Trap) wrote: Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers, who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london in 'peace'. I commute to Waterloo to work every day. On Thursday, however, I shall commute to the starting point of the demo instead. I live and work and pay my taxes in London, so I'll be dammed if someone tells me I shouldn't attend a demo in my own city. I too live, work and pay my taxes in London. I'll be equally damned if people like you through your demonstrations try to stop me going about my normal business because of your assumptions and opinions about Bush. As much as you may support the feelings against him please recognise that there are many in this country who have the opposite opinion. Oh, please! Plenty of things affect us going about our "normal business." You're just whinging about this particular one because it inflames your political sensibilities. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
The UK march agaimst Bush
The demonstrators on the other hand aren't invited guests. They
actually live their lives here, work and earn their living here and should have a right to express their opinion about a guest they didn't invite and certainly don't agree with coming here. Well that opinion ought (a) to be expressed in a way that does not cause massive inconvenience to others and (b) not to the guest but to those who invited him. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
The UK march agaimst Bush
And which group of disrupters are you going to take on next? Football
clubs? Pop groups? The Lord Mayor of London? The Stop Bush march, like sporting, entertainment and pageantry events, are legal and we just have to put up with the inconvenience that they cause. Matthew Living close to Stamford Bridge, I am seriously contemplating the first group you mention - I cannot leave my home whenever Chelsea play "at home" and if I am foolish enough to try to drive home before the match has finished, I can expect to sit in my car for anything up to 2 hours waiting for a car space to become available. It often takes 2 hours for dispersal even after the match has finished: all streets between Fulham Road and Wandsworth and Putney Bridges are in complete gridlock. Pop groups and the Lord Mayor of London (if you mean Ken, he is not a "Lord" Mayor) cause me no inconvenience and other events, like Jubilee or Remembrance parades are usually at week-ends or public holidays, so cause no disruption to my work. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Plonker.
"Mait001" wrote in message ... "Pleadings"? Are you a bloody yank? No, "pleadings" is the word used by ENGLISH lawyers to describe documents used to commence and continue proceedings in the civil Courts in England and Wales. The term covers a multiplicity of documents including Particulars of Claim, Defence, Counterclaim, Part 23 Claims and many others. So glad to light your way out of ignorance. Marc. Why am I a plonker - for offering free legal help or for answering someone's question, or both? Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
"Nick" wrote in message
... Plonker. Pity your contribution is limited to "plonker" and "are you a bloody Yank"! No, maybe we should be grateful for small mercies: had he said more, he may have accidentally shown his ignorance and embarrassed himself! Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Oh, please! Plenty of things affect us going about our "normal
business." You're just whinging about this particular one because it inflames your political sensibilities. -- Nick Cooper Well, Nick, at least you can't accuse me of that: I have written, several times, that I do not believe in traffic-disrupting demonstrations whatever the cause. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
Well that opinion ought (a) to be expressed in a way that does not
cause massive inconvenience to others and (b) not to the guest but to those who invited him. For (a), what way is this that you're suggesting? How should they express their opinion? For (b), what nonsense. They disagree with Bush and yet you're suggesting they shouldn't attempt to express their opinion to Bush but instead to Blair. I suppose next time I disagree with you I should express this disagreement to the manufacturer of your computer. (a) Hire the Albert Hall or some other venue and shou, rant, community singing, burn effigies or whatever, but don't do it so that Central London is put into gridlock. (b) Whether you like it or not, Bush is a GUEST in this Country at the invitation of Blair. Call me old-fashioned, but it just rankles with me that someone invited to this Country should not be the subject of the sort of attacks that seem to be being prepared for Bush. I don't particularly like the huge number of asylum seekers who are in this Country, but they are here whether I like it or not, and for me to be beastly towards them whenever I see them would serve no purpose whatsoever. If I were to take issue with anyone it would be with either the governments of the countries from which they came or our Government for allowing them to stay. Marc. |
The UK march agaimst Bush
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk