Moral stances such as "living on deficit is living on lies"I still think living on deficit is living on lies.
Sure, maybe increasing public spending helps in the short run, but then it creates inflation, on which everybody loses.And for those who think prices have not increased that much, think especially about Real Estate prices.
I won't answer the rest, but it is not about morality by any means.
You can choose to believe that spending more will solve the current problems. I don't.
I believe the choices offered are : shoot yourself a bullet in the foot now, or shoot yourself a full ammunition clip in the brain later.
Given this, I know what I would choose. It may be a grim choice, but then again I don't believe in fairy tales, and I think the current "everyhting is well" talk is just that.
YMMV, of course.
On this we have a fundamental disagreement.
Cutting (non wasteful!) government spendings during a economic downturn only turn the situation you meant to improve worse, as private spendings are already going down the drain.
The only time you can manage to seriously cut down on government spendings is during an economic boom, as the private sector is able tio sustain the economy by itself.
So, to go with your nice imagery, what you propose is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, then the calf, then the knee, then the thigh, then the gut, then the torso, then the neck, then the brainpan... Slow death by austerity, japanese style.
Better to maintain short-term and long-term investments, recover from the current slump, then worry about our debt. Which is still on the same level as the german one (in % of GNP), lower than the UK or US ones, etc.
|
I'm talking primarily about deregulation.Deregulation of what, and to what extent ?
For instance, further deregulation of the financial doesn't seem the way to go : we already saw how some economical actors wrecked the economy to futher their own ends.
On the german reunification topic : other UE members contributed through the UE development funds. But their main direct support was the canceling of the London Accords of 1953 and of the war debts that came with them. Greece alone was entitled to collect more than 130 billion euros from Germany !
I find this fascinating, what does Aubrey think should have its regulation cut?
Did't public debt increase because banks were given greater leeway to offer borrowing to those increasingly incapable of dealing with debt?
Isn't Greece's problem built on a foundation of cronyism and tax-avoidance (essentially, poor enforcement of existing legislation).
Which laws should the UK government do away with?
I wrote quite a long reply shortly after Smarnil posted but it got eaten and I didn't get round to doing it again.
There are a number of obvious things that present themselves, so I'll give an example. Spain currently has very high levels of unemployment. This has been exacerbated, but not caused, by the current crisis. For example, even in the good times, unemployment was in the region of 20% though it is significantly higher now. Also, youth unemployment is even higher. The main reason for this are extremely restrictive employment laws, making it difficult to get rid of staff you no longer need and making the payouts to do so extremely high. This, basically, makes labour expensive.
And, in line with basic economics, making stuff more expensive reduces demand. A business will be reluctant to hire staff in case they don't perform or the business plan changes and they need to lay people off, in case they end up being sued and having to make large payouts. Plus, once staff are lodged in place and are therefore difficult to shift, you are probably more inclined to keep someone inefficient in place rather than replace them with someone more productive because the hassle isn't worth it. It is a disincentive to grow your business. And, all other things being equal, you are unlikely to hire a callow youth with unproven ability over someone more established, hence higher youth unemployment.
The laws simply benefit insiders with tenure. Of course, those enjoying the benefits of such a system are reluctant to see it removed since it doesn't benefit them personally, and they form a fairly large interest group - hence politicians' reluctance to address these issues. But it's a disaster for the broader economy and reduces output. You generally find that countries with more flexible labour laws have lower unemployment.
Spain's employment laws are an example. There are plenty of other restrictive practices enshrined in the laws of the PIGS (and other countries, like France) - be it restricted professions, silly legal hurdles or unreformed and unproductive public services - which have this effect. Sometimes there is a reason but a lot of the time its just pork for special interests, seemingly benefiting at no "cost" but actually imposing higher costs on the broader economy and reducing output. Greece's problem is partly cronyism - that's how cronyism works.
That's the sort of deregulation I'm talking about. Clearly, the financial crisis hasn't helped, and has indeed made it obvious that these costs are not incidental. Also, part of the reason that the PIGS have these current account problems is because their relatively hidebound economies are unproductive for the reasons mentioned above, but because they could (for a while) pretend they had the same credit rating as Germany they borrowed to fund consumption that was not backed up by local production. The problems that arose are not new and they have had (and continue to have) major economic consequences.
As the the UK, there a number of things. There is reform ongoing in education, which is good. There are significant issues with construction (or lack thereof) related to restrictive planning laws. The Conservatives seem intent to imposing stupid restrictions on immigration. But it is also fair to say that the UK, following the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s which were largely left in place by Labour, is better off in a lot of respects. And having our own currency helps, of course.
As for the banks, we've discussed it before. The issue is more complicated than you suggest. At the very least, regulatory action by central banks (like the Fed under Greenspan) significantly added to the problem. Re-regulation is not a panacea. Nor can the cycle be abolished.
It's interesting to see that as soon as the people disagree on the fundamentals of how a society works, "democracy" looses importance and "security" becomes top concern - security for those at the top, that is.
Banning protests? No problems for the EU!
Kicking out semi-democratically elected leaders and instituting their own preferred ideologist? No problems for the EU!
Beating people to pulp for protesting against this new world order (or rather, old world order - it's the same corporativistic private feudalism that we've had for quite a while now)? No problems for the EU!
Aiding militant fascists in torturing anti-fascists? No problems for the EU!Everything becomes so much more apparent now when the s*+@ hits the fan.
Where are they banning protests now?
|
|
I don't believe in fairy talesSure you do. You seem to believe that global macroeconomics functions the same way as a household budget. You believe that aggressively cutting gov't spending will somehow magically shore up the economy.
Targeted government spending is absolutely necessary in times of crisis, like we are in. Now, if you want to debate WHERE we should target that spending I'm all ears. But your statements have shown you to have drunk the kool-aid of austerity and that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of monetary theory as it relates to global macroeconomics.
Targeted where? There are clearly implications for cutting spending dramatically, especially in the teeth of a global recession. But ultimately the southern European countries have a solvency issue and that can only be addressed by (1) increasing output and (2) reducing debt. The end point should be, at the very least, a much more managable level of debt, both public and private. And "targeted" spending simply risks producing more special interest groups that would resist spending reductions. The issue is more about the speed of reducing spending, not whether you should.
And, I'm afraid, in the end macroeconomics does come down to being like a household budget. Spend too much, you end up in trouble. It's just a case of when your crditors lose patience.
|
|
While government spending can indeed help countries get out of crisis, it does not work under all scenarios.Can you give me a historical example where cutting social programs and shifting the tax burden onto the lower classes has improved an ailing economy?
I don't think you'll find any. But then again, that's not what he was saying either. It's not a case of shifting the burden on to the lower classes, it's about reducing spending across the board.
But there is at least one example of a country that dealt with its banking crisis by aggressively addressing spending, and that was Sweden in the 1990s.
|
|
The problem with supply side reform, you make it cheaper or simpler to produce a good. But the problem is if you have unemployed workers, they still can't afford it. Supply side arguments only make sense when you are talking about specific laws that inhibite legitimate and beneficial economic activity. They do not cure unemployment.
Well, unemployment is (much) lower, and consistently so, in the UK than in most southern European countries and it's been like that for a long time (including pre-crisis). I'm afraid your argument doesn't stack up with the evidence.
While government spending can indeed help countries get out of crisis, it does not work under all scenarios.Can you give me a historical example where cutting social programs and shifting the tax burden onto the lower classes has improved an ailing economy?
I don't think you'll find any. But then again, that's not what he was saying either. It's not a case of shifting the burden on to the lower classes, it's about reducing spending across the board.
But there is at least one example of a country that dealt with its banking crisis by aggressively addressing spending, and that was Sweden in the 1990s.
Reducing spending accross the board shifts the burden to the lower classes. Most of the spending that can be cut is there to support them. I don't know about Europe, but here in the US those spending cuts are being targetted as:
Arts fundingPublic broadcasting (free education TV stations)
Public transportation
Teachers/Police/Fire
Environmental protections
Public science funding
Social Seccurity/Medicare
These are all programs that help everyone but cuts hurt the lower class more.
While government spending can indeed help countries get out of crisis, it does not work under all scenarios.Can you give me a historical example where cutting social programs and shifting the tax burden onto the lower classes has improved an ailing economy?
If there are two choices and one sometimes works and the other literally never works or has worked...well...
As to your second point, that's why Germany has to step in. There are complex issues at play in Greece, and every country is different.
I understand your point and agree that you never put the strain on the poor. I'm personally all in favour of counter-cyclical spending, as it has worked great for my country, where the State is obligated by law to keep a fiscal surplus in times of boom, so it can be spent in times of woe. The problem I see here is the nature of this particular crisis, which stands precisely on an issue of overspending.
Where will the money come from? Greece itself has shown to be unable to provide it, and so it has indebted itself many times over (I believe the number was in the 900% realm when the crisis started). International lenders are wary of giving Greece more money, because there are no guarantees of it giving it back. And when there is money available, it is at such high rates (derived from the country's ever-increasing risk) that they are borderline insane to take.
So while avoiding austerity measures in Greece may stall a social crisis, it is, as we say around here, "Bread for today, hunger for tomorrow". Unless extreme foreign measures are taken -such as condoning the entire Greek debt or the EU taking the burden of sustaining Greek spending for the years to come until it recovers-, it would be trading a problem today for an even bigger problem tomorrow.
I believe the solution will necessarily involve what you mention, about Germany or someone else going knee-deep to wrestle the crocodile. The great question now is who can, not so much in terms of money, but in terms of political cost.
Who knows, maybe China will see it as a great way to expand its influence in Europe or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are they banning protests now?
Spain and greece have both done this periodically. Several countries including those also try to legislate a ban on photographing/recording police on duty so police will be able to more easily beat people without others filming.
Where are they banning protests now?Spain and greece have both done this periodically. Several countries including those also try to legislate a ban on photographing/recording police on duty so police will be able to more easily beat people without others filming.
Sources ? Because it sounds... not very likely.
You claim a lot the weird things in your previous post, but don't provide clear examples. Of what are you talking about ?
Not just Spain. SOme states have made laws against recording police.
The ACLU website on photography rights says Illinois has a law against it that they are fighting. They also say they get daily complaints about police officers arresting for photographing them or confiscating cameras and deleting images.
The problem with supply side reform, you make it cheaper or simpler to produce a good. But the problem is if you have unemployed workers, they still can't afford it. Supply side arguments only make sense when you are talking about specific laws that inhibite legitimate and beneficial economic activity. They do not cure unemployment.Well, unemployment is (much) lower, and consistently so, in the UK than in most southern European countries and it's been like that for a long time (including pre-crisis). I'm afraid your argument doesn't stack up with the evidence.
UK unemployment is still around 8%, which is not a good thing. It's better than Spain's, but it's still not good. Considering the riots not too long ago, I think claims that the UK is out of the woods of a deepening recession are a little too hopeful.
Where are they banning protests now?Spain and greece have both done this periodically. Several countries including those also try to legislate a ban on photographing/recording police on duty so police will be able to more easily beat people without others filming.Sources ? Because it sounds... not very likely.
You claim a lot the weird things in your previous post, but don't provide clear examples. Of what are you talking about ?
On spain:
http://www.ibtimes.com/spanish-government-plans-ban-online-protest-organizi ng-436854http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/fears-of-disruptions-spain-bans- protests-ahead-of-sunday-vote-a-763836.html
On greece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/09/eurozone-crisis-angela-merke l-visits-greece
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/10/08/merkel-in-athens-police-bans-pr otest-rallies-in-citys-centre-are-we-in-state-of-emergency/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/08/265582/greece-police-ban-demos-in-a thens/
In several countries specific protests - for example for lgbt rights - have been banned (for example Serbia, and I think Poland)
On bans on recording police:
http://rt.com/news/spain-ban-photos-police-794/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/20/267716/spain-to-ban-filming-police- on-duty/
(I can't find the source on the other countries who's governments has made law suggestions like this, so believe me if you will and don't if you won't xD)
Comrade Burka, here is how you link stuff:
[url=websiteaddress]Write a cool link here[/url}
except that that last } is a ].
Linking stuff rules!
|
|
UK unemployment is still around 8%, which is not a good thing. It's better than Spain's, but it's still not good. Considering the riots not too long ago, I think claims that the UK is out of the woods of a deepening recession are a little too hopeful.The problem with supply side reform, you make it cheaper or simpler to produce a good. But the problem is if you have unemployed workers, they still can't afford it. Supply side arguments only make sense when you are talking about specific laws that inhibite legitimate and beneficial economic activity. They do not cure unemployment.Well, unemployment is (much) lower, and consistently so, in the UK than in most southern European countries and it's been like that for a long time (including pre-crisis). I'm afraid your argument doesn't stack up with the evidence.
The riots had very little to do with unemployment - a lot of rioters had jobs. It had to do with criminality and inequality, which are separate, though by no means unimportant, issues. And yes, 8% is too high, but we are in a recession. But it sure beats the 20% Spain had in the boom, and the forty-odd percent it has now. With, I might add, much more strigent laws that supposedly protect employment.
|
|
Reducing spending accross the board shifts the burden to the lower classes. Most of the spending that can be cut is there to support them. I don't know about Europe, but here in the US those spending cuts are being targetted as:
Arts funding
Public broadcasting (free education TV stations)
Public transportation
Teachers/Police/Fire
Environmental protections
Public science funding
Social Seccurity/MedicareThese are all programs that help everyone but cuts hurt the lower class more.
Most of those sound like middle-class preoccupations - arts funding, public science funding - and stuff that shouldn't be universal benefits but actually targeted at the poor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Europe, there is official inflation, which is described as low by all govermental studies, and the real inflation : the one common people feel.
Officially, and as described above, there is no inflation. Yet now the popular soups have never been so full of people ... who actually hold jobs but cannot pay for food or clothing any longer. This coming on top of the jobless. This was not the case dome twenty years ago.
And now with the crisis, the charities are starting to be worried that their donators may no longer be able to help them.
|
|
I don't believe in fairy talesSure you do. You seem to believe that global macroeconomics functions the same way as a household budget. You believe that aggressively cutting gov't spending will somehow magically shore up the economy.
Targeted government spending is absolutely necessary in times of crisis, like we are in. Now, if you want to debate WHERE we should target that spending I'm all ears. But your statements have shown you to have drunk the kool-aid of austerity and that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of monetary theory as it relates to global macroeconomics.
Well at some point they do. That's my belief.
Now, on the other hand, I believe in getting the money to close the deficits where it is : in the massive tax evasion of some rich people, and also in the massive tax evasion schemes of large multinational companies.I am not saying illegal tax evasion : the european tax codes is full of loopholes allowing companies to avoid taxes, and we should close them.
Starting with the privileges that allow dividends to go back to the home country of groups with a different level of taxation depending on from which country they leave europe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The riots had very little to do with unemployment - a lot of rioters had jobs. It had to do with criminality and inequality, which are separate, though by no means unimportant, issues.
Not to mention police murder...
Most of those sound like middle-class preoccupations - arts funding, public science funding - and stuff that shouldn't be universal benefits but actually targeted at the poor.Reducing spending accross the board shifts the burden to the lower classes. Most of the spending that can be cut is there to support them. I don't know about Europe, but here in the US those spending cuts are being targetted as:
Arts funding
Public broadcasting (free education TV stations)
Public transportation
Teachers/Police/Fire
Environmental protections
Public science funding
Social Seccurity/MedicareThese are all programs that help everyone but cuts hurt the lower class more.
Arts funding - often targets lower income areas or people. City beatification projects reduce crime and are usually targetting low income housing. People who get paid through these projects are often near the poverty line. Art doesn't pay. But I can conceede this one.
Public broadcasting (free education TV stations) - A huge bennefit. Its been shown to raise inner city education levels and improve quality of life for low income familes.
Public transportation - The middle class doesn't use it except in large cities that have a tax base of their own to pay for it, because most middle class people own cars. I have met a few people from Europe who didn't get the concept that you need a car to get anywhere in the US, so I can understand you thinking this is a middle class issue. Its mostly a lower class problem.
Teachers/Police/Fire -These are paid for at the local level but recieve funding from State and Federal levels. If higher levels of governement pay less, then well off communities raise taxes by small ammounts and life goes on. Poor communities must cut though, so the austerity hurts the poor disproportionately here. Really this extends to any public servants, including transportation, public health and safety.
Environmental protections - If your environment gets destroyed and you are well to do, you move. The poorer you are, the worse your options are. Many people cannot afford to move far enough to get out of polution zones, especially when they can't find work elsewhere. In addition, things like national parks provide low cost options for activites to do. Removing them significantly reduces the quality of life of low income families, and they are considered low on priority for public funding.
Public science funding - I will agree that this is an area that is more general and bennefits everyone.
Social Seccurity/Medicare - Specifically designed to provide low income families medical care and the elderly with enough money to live off of. Cuts may universally affect people, but will be felt more the poorer you are.
I will also add one here: Low income housing initiatives. There are lots of projects trying to get people into homes or provide low rent state subsidized options. Home ownership is shown to reduce crime and increase education levels.
So you were there? Neither was I. The Met isn't the New Orleans PD, and due process hasn't been completed yet.
Yeah, I was across the street. I saw it all.
Whether or not your bobbies were out of line or not, your short list of causes of the riots forgot to mention that they were sparked by the death of a man at the hands of the London police.
Just sayin'.
Also,
Public broadcasting (free education TV stations) - A huge bennefit. Its been shown to raise inner city education levels and improve quality of life for low income familes.
Also trying to do austerity through tossing Big Bird in a wood chipper is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble made of moist air and no arms.
|
|
Arts funding - often targets lower income areas or people. City beatification projects reduce crime and are usually targetting low income housing. People who get paid through these projects are often near the poverty line. Art doesn't pay. But I can conceede this one.
This is tenuous, even you agree.
Public broadcasting (free education TV stations) - A huge bennefit. Its been shown to raise inner city education levels and improve quality of life for low income familes.
Maybe. I suspect reform of education in schools, and reducing the grip of the teaching unions, would be more beneficial than extra Sesame Street.
Public transportation - The middle class doesn't use it except in large cities that have a tax base of their own to pay for it, because most middle class people own cars. I have met a few people from Europe who didn't get the concept that you need a car to get anywhere in the US, so I can understand you thinking this is a middle class issue. Its mostly a lower class problem.
I'll concede that one.
Teachers/Police/Fire -These are paid for at the local level but recieve funding from State and Federal levels. If higher levels of governement pay less, then well off communities raise taxes by small ammounts and life goes on. Poor communities must cut though, so the austerity hurts the poor disproportionately here. Really this extends to any public servants, including transportation, public health and safety.
See my comments re teachers above, and the same probably goes for police and fire services too. they shouldn't be considered immune to the possibility to reform and efficiency gains. Teaching in the public sector in the US (and the UK, to a large degree) is considered woeful in the main. Why can places like Singapore do it (very) well, and often more cheaply? Because they have implemented reforms in efficiency and accountability.
Environmental protections - If your environment gets destroyed and you are well to do, you move. The poorer you are, the worse your options are. Many people cannot afford to move far enough to get out of polution zones, especially when they can't find work elsewhere. In addition, things like national parks provide low cost options for activites to do. Removing them significantly reduces the quality of life of low income families, and they are considered low on priority for public funding.
Most of the environmental protections come in the form of regulations, not spending.
Public science funding - I will agree that this is an area that is more general and bennefits everyone.
Social Seccurity/Medicare - Specifically designed to provide low income families medical care and the elderly with enough money to live off of. Cuts may universally affect people, but will be felt more the poorer you are.
I'm a great believer in public healthcare and pensions, but again I don't believe it should be a blanket benefit. Plus there is massive scope in the US, at least, for savings in heathcare expenditures given that the current system incentivises treatments and tests people don't need.
I will also add one here: Low income housing initiatives. There are lots of projects trying to get people into homes or provide low rent state subsidized options. Home ownership is shown to reduce crime and increase education levels.
I wouldn't particularly disagree with that either. I think the issue is whether there is scope for savings in public sector provision of lots of this stuff through means testing and public sector reform (at the very least, public sector unions are very unkeen on increasing accountability (and sackability) for their members, often because a significant number of them are rubbish). Whether these produce massive savings is moot (though funnily private companies often cope with massive cost reductions that the public sector seems unable to countenance) but the increased efficiency shouldat least productivity. I think it's naive to write a blank check to the public sector and simply assume that its all money well-spent, and that if they only keep doing what they are doing now everything will be fine.
Well, since you don't want to drop it:
The officer, known only as V53, said his account of the shooting was compiled three days later, when he and his colleagues spent more than eight hours sitting in a room together writing their statements. He said they were aware of the rules about officers conferring and had discussed the incident among themselves before writing their statements.
Hutchinson-Foster's defence was that he had not passed the gun to Duggan and that the jury could not be sure the evidence from police officers was correct."
Sounds like a cover-up to murder to me. But, no, I wasn't there.
|
|
Or an error. Or he had a weapon after all and it was picked up off the street. I agree the evidence is not very clear either way, but you haven't really explained why they would simply kill the guy (unless all police marksmen are de facto psychos). And do it so incompetently as to leave it looking like this. Cover-up? Probably, the police usually try to close ranks. Cock-up? Most likely. Manslaughter? Quite possibly. Pre-meditated murder? Sorry, I need more than your suppositions and paranoia as evidence. And Hutchinson-Foster wasn't acquitted, by the way, there is to be a retrial.
Thing is, my brother is a policeman. Very few police officers can even carry firearms (less than anout 5%, I think). They carry them in very specific situations and are very highly trained to use them. Cock up and you won't be carrying one any more (at least). Most police don't want to carry firearms, because the culture of the police here is that they recognise it's a big deal to use one. So I don't buy this "casual murder" thing you seem to consider this to be. Police shootings are so rare here every one is a s$&~-storm. I certainly wouldn't rule out a mistake, but I'd expect it would be an honest one.
Or an error. Or he had a weapon after all and it was picked up off the street. I agree the evidence is not very clear either way, but you haven't really explained why they would simply kill the guy (unless all police marksmen are de facto psychos). And do it so incompetently as to leave it looking like this. Cover-up? Probably, the police usually try to close ranks. Cock-up? Most likely. Manslaughter? Quite possibly. Pre-meditated murder? Sorry, I need more than your suppositions and paranoia as evidence. And Hutchinson-Foster wasn't acquitted, by the way, there is to be a retrial.
I don't think there was a premeditated conspiracy to murder Mark Duggan and I'm not trying to convince anyone that there was.
If your argument hangs on the use of the word "murder" as defined in a court of law as opposed to the use of the word "murder" in a five word post I wrote before I drank my coffee, fine, you win.
Did the riots break out because of criminality and inequality or because the police mur--ahem, killed a man? I win.
Yay, we're all winners!
So has "theft", but if I went outside and my bike is gone with my broken lock next to it, I'm gonna say "hey, someone stole my bike!" even though the person hasn't been found guilty of theft in a court room.
|
|
So you were there? Neither was I. The Met isn't the New Orleans PD, and due process hasn't been completed yet.Remember, if someone you love is killed by the police for no apparent reason, you must remain calm and collected and not get upset until after the police conduct their investigation and determine if a crime was committed and then continue to remain calm until after the trial and all appeals have been exhausted.
At that point, which may be years later, you can be upset with the individual if he was convicted, but not with the system since it worked. If he was not convicted or if the investigation determines there is no need for a trial, then you can't be upset at all since he isn't guilty of anything.
You can never be upset at the system.
Snark aside, asking people to postpone emotional reaction until due process is finished doesn't work. That's not the way people work.
I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting all of those rioters loved Duggan? I expect 99.9% of them never met the guy. Most of them just seemed to want a new pair of trainers. Or Anklebiter? Or you? And yes, you are supposed to remain at the very least inside the law, irrespective of your feelings. That's, well, the law.
Clearly you are entitled to comment and have an emotional reaction if you feel the need. My point, as was made to Anklebiter, was that calling it "murder" is a big accusation and not to be made casually, especially when the facts haven't been established. And while the courts aren't perfect, those in the UK are generally free and unbiased and represent the least worst system there is. Calling people murderers on the basis of reading a couple of articles online does not, in my view, represent a better paradigm for dispensing justice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling people murderers on the basis of reading a couple of articles online does not, in my view, represent a better paradigm for dispensing justice.
Why is it this seems to be true everytime a state official has done something horrible, but never in other cases? Plenty of people called those who flew boeings into WTC terrorists, murderers and a lot of other things - but they where never convicted of such crimes. A lot of news media had labeled Breivik a mass murderer far before he got his sentence.
This happens ALL THE TIME yet noone seems to care until the murderer is a cop or similar, then it's all about "THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED!!!!".
Where are they banning protests now?Spain and greece have both done this periodically. Several countries including those also try to legislate a ban on photographing/recording police on duty so police will be able to more easily beat people without others filming.Sources ? Because it sounds... not very likely.
You claim a lot the weird things in your previous post, but don't provide clear examples. Of what are you talking about ?
On spain:
http://www.ibtimes.com/spanish-government-plans-ban-online-protest-organizi ng-436854
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/fears-of-disruptions-spain-bans- protests-ahead-of-sunday-vote-a-763836.htmlOn greece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/09/eurozone-crisis-angela-merke l-visits-greece
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/10/08/merkel-in-athens-police-bans-pr otest-rallies-in-citys-centre-are-we-in-state-of-emergency/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/08/265582/greece-police-ban-demos-in-a thens/In several countries specific protests - for example for lgbt rights - have been banned (for example Serbia, and I think Poland)
On bans on recording police:
http://rt.com/news/spain-ban-photos-police-794/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/20/267716/spain-to-ban-filming-police- on-duty/
(I can't find the source on the other countries who's governments has made law suggestions like this, so believe me if you will and don't if you won't xD)
Thanks for the (non linked) links...
Well, banning in advance a protest when you have (rightly or wrongly) reason to think that it will turn out ugly is a quite common practice, not a novelty. Such ban can be challenged before a court.
We have yet to see if the ban on recording police will pass in Spain. For my part, I don't think it's likely, as it seems to go against the grain of spanish people. They do love their political freedoms.
And it's just Spain under a conservative government, not the EU.
We also have yet to see what you meant in a previous post by "kicking out semi-democratically elected leaders and instituting their own preferred ideologist", "beating people to pulp for protesting against this new world order" and "aiding militant fascists in torturing anti-fascists" ! Sources ? Explanations ?
What I try to say is that you seem to use a very wide brush...
|
|
Calling people murderers on the basis of reading a couple of articles online does not, in my view, represent a better paradigm for dispensing justice.Why is it this seems to be true everytime a state official has done something horrible, but never in other cases? Plenty of people called those who flew boeings into WTC terrorists, murderers and a lot of other things - but they where never convicted of such crimes. A lot of news media had labeled Breivik a mass murderer far before he got his sentence.
This happens ALL THE TIME yet noone seems to care until the murderer is a cop or similar, then it's all about "THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED!!!!".
Well, the 9/11 terrorists were on the planes, and did suicide videos. Breivik said he did it from the outset. The situation here is different. And anyway, that doesn't invalidate my comment - unless you really think mob justice and trial by media is great. Please stop and think a bit.
|
|
Or an error. Or he had a weapon after all and it was picked up off the street. I agree the evidence is not very clear either way, but you haven't really explained why they would simply kill the guy (unless all police marksmen are de facto psychos). And do it so incompetently as to leave it looking like this. Cover-up? Probably, the police usually try to close ranks. Cock-up? Most likely. Manslaughter? Quite possibly. Pre-meditated murder? Sorry, I need more than your suppositions and paranoia as evidence. And Hutchinson-Foster wasn't acquitted, by the way, there is to be a retrial.I don't think there was a premeditated conspiracy to murder Mark Duggan and I'm not trying to convince anyone that there was.
If your argument hangs on the use of the word "murder" as defined in a court of law as opposed to the use of the word "murder" in a five word post I wrote before I drank my coffee, fine, you win.
Did the riots break out because of criminality and inequality or because the police mur--ahem, killed a man? I win.
Yay, we're all winners!
Or because for aa lot of people it doesn't feel like anythings changed since the early eighties.
You know that most of the rioters weren't even born in the early Eighties, right? And policing has changed radically since then. And so has society. I think drawing parallels with the early Eighties is probably missing the point. And trying to prove a point with a Clash video..?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, what?
All I know is The Clash rule!
Actually, I was thinking it over this morning when I was loading trucks and I had a flashback...
It's 1997 or so and young Comrade Anklebiter is attending a week-long urban socialist summer camp type thingy in NYC. One day, they take all of the young comrades and run them through this exercise in leaflet writing where they're given this hypothetical situation involving a striker getting killed by police on the picket line.
So, the comrade describes the hypothetical situation and then we're all given an hour or so to write a leaflet. I thought long and hard and churned something out like, "Police Murder Picketer" or whatever.
So, we all hand them in and the comrade reads them over and criticizes them. He gave mine a general all-around thumbs up, but then goes on to say, "But it's important to point out that 'murder' is a very technical, legal term..."
What can I say? I'm prone to sensationalism and hyperbole.
|
|
What about the mid nineties when there were riots over the same perception (if not reality) of the Met abusing minorities?
In the same neighborhood for that matter.
And if you don't get the Clash reference there, nothing I say will make you understand that just because things have supposedly changed, there are lots and lots of people saying it hasn't.
Plus, I''m not sure the right wing racists using the initials EDL rather than BNF is really a meaningful change.
Besides, Anklebiter wasn't picking the ball up on that one.
I get the Clash reference, but playing me a song doesn't constitute a cogent point in a debate and smacks rather more of wannabe coolness. And given Joe Strummer was actually the public schoolboy son of a diplomat, I'm not going to get too excited about their grungy urban roots. Plus I'm a Steely Dan guy.
People act like riots are something special. They happen quite regularly, since the dawn of time, every few years, in this country and others. Riots in London, riots in Bradford, riots in Birmingham, riots in Paris, riots in LA, and so on. There are reasons, but in the end some guys somewhere are going to want to mix it up. The reasons are a lot more complex that either just racist policing, simple criminality or gang culture, or whatever the trendy explanation of the day is. In the end, rioting is fun. If the answers were easy, it would be dealt with by now.
I get the Clash reference, but playing me a song doesn't constitute a cogent point in a debate and smacks rather more of wannabe coolness. And given Joe Strummer was actually the public schoolboy son of a diplomat, I'm not going to get too excited about their grungy urban roots.
"Guns of Brixton" was written and sung by Paul Simonon.
"In 2010, the TUC produced figures to show that since 1979 the share of GDP going to labour had slumped from 65% to 53% and the share to profits had risen from 13% to 21%.
This is the biggest fall in any advanced economy except the US."
America still number one!
USA! USA! USA!
Rioting: The Musical Interlude
If Citizen Aubrey doesn't like The Clash, he's going to hate The Mekons!
Calling people murderers on the basis of reading a couple of articles online does not, in my view, represent a better paradigm for dispensing justice.Why is it this seems to be true everytime a state official has done something horrible, but never in other cases? Plenty of people called those who flew boeings into WTC terrorists, murderers and a lot of other things - but they where never convicted of such crimes. A lot of news media had labeled Breivik a mass murderer far before he got his sentence.
This happens ALL THE TIME yet noone seems to care until the murderer is a cop or similar, then it's all about "THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED!!!!".
Agreed. I experience this on a regular basis.