Absolutely.

Was linked this from the BBC website from a mate on FB., thought it was a decent read.

A different stance on alcohol.

Its a long article so wont C+P here

Im off for my 'Units' of Coffee

And no-one wants painful gulags.

Well to be fair it's still not exactly clear just what the motives behind occupy wall street actually are.
Whatever it is it's not working is it?

Would you say that's kind of a problem with street protests generally, mickey?

I think a more honest description would be that people who rely on the daily mail for their understanding of the world have no idea what the motives of the wall st protest are, and assume it's hypocritical because some of them have rich parents so they should jolly well stop it and get back to being proper members of society.

But then people who rely on the daily mail for their understanding of the world are left with little ability not to be a moron, and morons never really understand much anyway.
So it's not a massive surprise, but hardly fair to blame the protestors for not explaining their motives properly.

Not really, regular street protests are usually marches, but when you occupy a space there should be a clear reason behind it & hope it leads to change or even a negotiation.
But these folks just seem to be there, nothing seems to be happening at all.

Re the nothing happening bit, there's a general feeling that protests which don't involve violence are less no valid as a result (of course there are those who quite noticeably do not agree, but we'll leave them out of it).
If you really want to understand why they're there mickey I'd recommend looking into it, you probably won't give too much credence to what I say so I won't bother explaining it to you. But a quick google (making sure to avoid any links to the daily mail) might give you some actual understanding of the subject you're commentating on.

In fairness, I think Kiffy should be banned from saying Daily Mail.

Because I said it 3 times?

Partly - also, I don't like you.

The base principles of protests are justified, inequality and how the gap between the rich & poor is growing, but there has to be a form of economic differences in modern society, alright at the moment it's wider than it probably should be, but as long ad the rich and the corporations are making good money it won't change & it can't.
The only way it would work is through the political system.

Sadly I think too many people have seen how the events unfolded in Egypt & seem to think the same thing could (should?) happen in our societies. However while they were fighting for freedom and democracy, the western protests don't have that kind of radical change on the horizon to support them.

And therefore you hope I'm not longer able to use the term "Daily mail"? As curses go, it's a pretty tame one.

Well, I'm pretty mild mannered. May your milk forever be sour - not too sour to drink, but with a weird smell about it.

Fair enough, in the same spirit, may your tuesdays always be slightlly too long, and may any of your long term girlfriends/wives suffer from athletes foot. Forever.

Oh and by the by one of the messages I got from neil spcificly contained "Like I said, if anyone tries to goad you, then they will be suspended"

So it seems I don't have to respond at all. So I assume a suspension is forthcoming to the guilty party?

Really Mickey, if you're going to come onto this board, then the very least you could do is respect the laws of the board, without deciding you have better laws. That simply will not stand.

I mean the motivation point that you made. That people may be doing it for their own motivations, and it's difficult to know what they are.

So you either have rules or you don't, making them up, overruling them without good reason or simply ignoring them invalidates any rules that you set up.
It therefore breeds anarchy and distrust for the powers that be, a bit like the point that are being made in this thread.

People should be treated fairly, correct?

JNLister has been suspended. Thanks for reading and lets move on.

Its the UKFF mickey never expect consistency when it comes to the rules here.

EDIT

Well thats my face red if the above is true.

Suspended for sass.

Is it a little bit harsh to have a rule change only mentioned in one thread?

Stop derailing this thread. Last warning.

Can I ask for a clarification neil? If mickey posts in the General Politics thread, it's going to be very hard to discuss with him about politics WITHOUT mentioning the E*F as that's where his politics lie.

Should mickey therefore be banned from this thread OR (my preference) references to the EDF be allowed within this one thread?

Edit: posted before neil's last warning

No. The whole point is that mickey needs to prove he can post about subjects other than the fucking EDL. Other people need to prove that they can get past an image in the sig and stop making stupid pot shots (i.e. kiffy).

If anyone wants to continue this thrilling discussion into this please use the pinned thread.

Anyhow, back to politics. What do people think about the allegations that some offenders have been getting noticeably short sentences?

Place wasn't the same without you, man. How was your break?

Anyway, short sentences. I think that form should account for a lot.

You. Jail. Inside. Now.

Pffft, justice system is a joke I tells ya!

Looking buff, man. You been working out in the pen?

What's Adebisi like in the showers?

Like a black Bertha Faye.

Did I say the programme from the other night was spies & secret filming?


Again, I wasn't referring directly to last nights show, I was talking about the other undercover shows we've had. I simply said that I'd love to see tactics like that used against the mainstream parties. It would make for interesting viewing. Look at what a microphone that was left on too long did for Gordon Brown!

It would be interesting to be fair, the problem is the kind of security clearance needed to get to the properly juicy bits just wouldn't get handed out to journalists. Besides which, anyone that did get invited in to private moments would get it on the basis that some stuff's off the record, if they abuse that, they'll never get invited in again.
If they could get into cabinet meetings, the stuff about the war, that would be mighty interesting.

You certainly insinuated it, the day after the programme went out you said you wished the same tactics would apply to all. When of course in the relation to the issue we were discussing, they did.

No I didn't. I replied to a post by Duane saying;


I don't see how that post comes across as me insinuating anything. I acknowledged that the programme in question was an interesting watch, then when on to say that an expose of the main parties would be even more interesting. Where do I mention secret filming & spies in relation to the programme from the other night?

I said;


I don't quite understand your issue with what I said. I watched the programme just like you did, so obviously I know it wasn't along the lines of the other BNP exposes

Currently watching Panorama and the BNP look like they are on deaths door and Big Nick seems incapable of telling the truth about anything.

The bloke's been lying so long I doubt even he knows what's real anymore. He's been trying to convince more moderate right wingers the partys not full of nazi's while convincing the more headline members they are there to push a nazi case all the while trying to create an air of respectability to the party.

The part where he agreed to an interview and then did a runner almost had me in tears fair play to the fat, racist cunt that was funny not as funny as the party treasurer giving the beeb crew a cracking "I'm gonna fucking do ya cunts in" look during the fiasco.



What documentary was that kiffy?

Hee, yeah don't like to say it but credit where it's due, turning the tables on the interview and giving the reporter a load of questions was very clever indeed. What''s funny is if you have a sneak look on ol griffin's facebook page alot of the supporters think they came out of that panorama documentary well as a result, and it just proved what wankers the BBC are. One choice quote I really liked was
"The BBC has to keep the country at war with itself, to make sure no-one see's what they're investing in," Funny stuff.
The old one was another panorama documentary from years ago, can't remember much more than the name and the content above. It was the reason griffin and his head of publications got done for incitment to racial hatred a few years back, as noted in mondays panorama.
Would imagine it's on you tube somewhere.

Oh goody Ken Livingstone is on Question Time

aaaaaaaand point remote - OFF!

There, happiness

Yes, ignorance IS bliss, isn't it.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you like Ken? Any reasons in particular? Or is it just because he's a bit to the left?

I would presume the key to remaining ignorant is to avoid everything that might challenge any of your views. Hard work, but no doubt ultimately worth it.

You do realise this isn't twitter, right? You've come into a politics thread to make the point that you're avoiding politics.

Andrew Lansley got slaughtered on QT last night.

And you've come into a politics thread to have a pop at me.

The point was my weekly enjoyment of QT was spoilt due to Kenny Boy.
See?

Within politics you will tend to find people who hold opposing views. Now you obviously don't have to listen to those views if you don't want to. But, if you'll only watch/read/listen to people who share your opinions? Then you're opinions tend to end up moronic and laughable. (I don't need to even mention your sig for proof of that, your retarded point about the wall st protest having rich people in it, based on what you read on the daily mail site, is more than adequate proof of that).
I can even give you an example, the current government's pushing the right to buy idea for council homes, but it's also promosing to build one social house for everyone sold. Now that's a brilliant idea, and I applaud them for it, and labour should have done it over a decade ago (as should thatcher when the scheme first came out, but I digress) but if I turned off radio 4 because they had a tory politician on, I wouldn't have known that.