Anti-Terrorist Police threaten 12-year-old kid

[Daft]

Schoolboy warned by police over

picket plan at David "Cunt" Cameron's office

 

 

...

 

Wishart said that after the school was contacted by anti-terrorist officers, he was taken out of his English class on Tuesday afternoon and interviewed by a Thames Valley officer at the school in the presence of his head of year. During the interview, Wishart says that the officer told him that if any public disorder took place at the event he would be held responsible and arrested.

 

Speaking to the Guardian, Nicky Wishart said: "In my lesson, [a school secretary] came and said my head of year wanted to talk to me. She was in her office with a police officer who wanted to talk to me about the protest. He said, 'if a riot breaks out we will arrest people and if anything happens you will get arrested because you are the organiser'.

 

"He said even if I didn't turn up I would be arrested and he also said that if David Cameron was in, his armed officers will be there 'so if anything out of line happens ...' and then he stopped."

 

...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

 

One commenter summed up my feelings,

 

Terrorist squad? For a year 7 protest? What does this tell us:

 

1. "Terrorist" now means anything that challenges the status quo, even by entirely peaceful/legal means

 

2. The idea of a "Big Society" of engaged citizens is very much a one-way street - we pick up the pieces they drop, but in return, not a squeak out of us, please

 

3. The police really are a bunch of twats. And bullies. And completely politicised. I hope they get what's coming to them in 2011.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Not much to add. It's ridiculous.

[chairdriver]

Random tangential thought: Our society puts too much emphasis on blaming people.

[The Bard]

Is that right? And I assume that conviction swings both ways. Clegg and Cameron are just cogs in the working of the modern day, which we can see from the indications of cabinet ministers that they are considering advising internet service providers to abandon net neutrality, and instead siphon users towards sites that are more financially advantageous, to educational budget cuts that increasingly put emphasis on vocational degrees and valuate education upon its ability to contribute to the bottom line of the GDP and billion pound corporations. These decisions are made not because they are wanted, but because people in ostensible positions of power cannot help but be swayed by the tides of the discourses (in the Foucauldian sense) that we live by, which, in the case of the contemporary zeitgeist, are predominantly fiscal.

 

Shit is gonna swing whatever way it was always bound to, and anyone under a supposed posision of power is nothing more than a scapegoat, because they have pathetically little influence upon the turn of the tide.

 

People getting riled up is so redolent with futility that it kind of boggles.

[chairdriver]

That's making massive assumption that money solely dictates what's what in life.

 

My dad said at dinner tonight "Ideology is dangerous". It's kinda true. But ideology is a way to combat the things that have become unquestionable. Is amassing more money really the best thing for our country?

 

I just feel alienated by politics anyway, because I hate the concept of "Let's make this country great". Forget fucking countries. Let's make life great.

 

Anyone that argues that education is not necessary to make life great has not read enough. I hate being condescending, but if that's your line, find enlightenment.

[jayseven]

Pinches of saaaaaaaaaaaaalt.

[Emasher]

I find it sad that we are moving further and further away from a libertarian society and more towards an authoritarian one (in the west in general).

[chairdriver]

I find it sad that we are moving further and further away from a libertarian society and more towards an authoritarian one (in the west in general).

 

People adapt. Pressure creates an environment where people shine. When it gets worse, people that have sway will step forward and do what's right.

[Ramar]

Never mind the protest, should have had a word about that pose.

[Emasher]

Are you suggesting that it will eventually get so bad there will be a revolution? I find that highly unlikely.

[Daft]

Is that right? And I assume that conviction swings both ways. Clegg and Cameron are just cogs in the working of the modern day, which we can see from the indications of cabinet ministers that they are considering advising internet service providers to abandon net neutrality, and instead siphon users towards sites that are more financially advantageous, to educational budget cuts that increasingly put emphasis on vocational degrees and valuate education upon its ability to contribute to the bottom line of the GDP and billion pound corporations. These decisions are made not because they are wanted, but because people in ostensible positions of power cannot help but be swayed by the tides of the discourses (in the Foucauldian sense) that we live by, which, in the case of the contemporary zeitgeist, are predominantly fiscal.

 

Shit is gonna swing whatever way it was always bound to, and anyone under a supposed posision of power is nothing more than a scapegoat, because they have pathetically little influence upon the turn of the tide.

 

People getting riled up is so redolent with futility that it kind of boggles.

 

Problem is you've assumed the discourse isn't going to change.

 

Changes do come, though. They usually come as a result of violence. The suffragettes knew it and we now celebrate their courage. The French Revolution, the Stone Wall riots, the Poll Tax riots - not only did they work but we now celebrate them all.

 

And anyway, what's the alternative? Just sit there and get shafted constantly? I'd rather give them Hell.

 

Not to mention that getting riled up is a necessary part of the current (in fact any) discourse.

 

Are you suggesting that it will eventually get so bad there will be a revolution? I find that highly unlikely.

 

Cynicism is a tool of domination. As Shakespeare said, 'Our doubts are traitors... And make us lose the good we oft might win. By fearing to attempt.'

Edited December 10, 2010 by Daft

[chairdriver]

Are you suggesting that it will eventually get so bad there will be a revolution? I find that highly unlikely.

 

In an extreme case, maybe.

 

I'm talking more about people that give a shit. People willing to do stuff that might compromise their current lifestyle (by going to jail, for example), in an effort to change things.

 

Mini-revolutions.

[MoogleViper]

People adapt. Pressure creates an environment where people shine. When it gets worse, people that have sway will step forward and do what's right.

 

Yeah good luck with that.

[ReZourceman]

Never mind the protest, should have had a word about that pose.

 

CCHHHEEEEE BOOOYYYY.

[heroicjanitor]

When it gets worse, people that have sway will step forward and do what's right.

 

That takes a lot of faith, you think there will always be someone willing to do this?

[chairdriver]

Well you only need to look as far as Lui Xiaobo, who today is imprisoned for speaking out against the Chinese government. If people give a shit, they'll do stuff.

[Serebii]

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2006_V_for_Vendetta/2006_v_for_vendetta_036.jpg

 

Soon, this will be the case...

[Daft]

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2006_V_for_Vendetta/2006_v_for_vendetta_036.jpg

 

Soon, this will be the case...

 

They ban the internet?

 

I wouldn't put it past them. SOCA are not far off being granted the ability to take down any site they want.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Daft

[Emasher]

In an extreme case, maybe.

 

I'm talking more about people that give a shit. People willing to do stuff that might compromise their current lifestyle (by going to jail, for example), in an effort to change things.

 

Mini-revolutions.

 

So, something more like the civil rights movement in the states?

[EEVILMURRAY]

No doubt Chair put him up to it.

3. The police really are a bunch of twats. And bullies. And completely politicised. I hope they get what's coming to them in 2011.[/i]

WHOA WHOA. Cheel Daftmon. You saw what happened to this kid for saying one bad word.

[ipaul]

I find it sad that we are moving further and further away from a libertarian society and more towards an authoritarian one (in the west in general).

 

I feel I should point out that Libertarianism encompasses more than just the social aspect of the relationship the citizen has with the state. One of the defining ideals of 'Libertarians' (if not the ideal) is the belief in a market based economy with little to no social welfarism. The increase in fees for students is exactly the kind of thing that a self professed 'Libertarian' would advocate. That said I agree completely with the sentiment.

 

A little pedantic I know but hey :P. According to Noam Chomsky the word didn't always mean what it does now, but free marketeers sort of appropriated it and began using it in that way. I have a feeling it's also a slightly American definition.

 

As for the story, shit is messed up. I honestly thought the Tories would be more socially libertarian than Labour, but apparently not. This type of thing seems to have become far too common place.

[Serebii]

As for the story, shit is messed up. I honestly thought the Tories would be more socially libertarian than Labour, but apparently not. This type of thing seems to have become far too common place.

 

Governments change. The bulk of the policeforce do not.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I feel I should point out that Libertarianism encompasses more than just the social aspect of the relationship the citizen has with the state. One of the defining ideals of 'Libertarians' (if not the ideal) is the belief in a market based economy with little to no social welfarism. The increase in fees for students is exactly the kind of thing that a self professed 'Libertarian' would advocate. That said I agree completely with the sentiment.

 

A little pedantic I know but hey :P. According to Noam Chomsky the word didn't always mean what it does now, but free marketeers sort of appropriated it and began using it in that way. I have a feeling it's also a slightly American definition.

 

As for the story, shit is messed up. I honestly thought the Tories would be more socially libertarian than Labour, but apparently not. This type of thing seems to have become far too common place.

 

Um, I'm no expert on the subject, but as far as I'm concerned, libertarianism and liberalism do not necessarily go hand in hand, nor do authoritarianism and socialism. They often do, yes, but I'm pretty sure there are groups of libertarian socialists and authoritarian liberalists.

[ipaul]

Um, I'm no expert on the subject, but as far as I'm concerned, libertarianism and liberalism do not necessarily go hand in hand, nor do authoritarianism and socialism. They often do, yes, but I'm pretty sure there are groups of libertarian socialists and authoritarian liberalists.

 

I never said authoritarianism and socialism go hand in hand. I never even implied it.

 

You're missing my point a bit, people who call themselves Libertarians nowadays nearly always mean economic Libertarians. Which in turn means 'leave everything to the market' 'welfarism is evil'.

 

http://lpuk.org/

 

Like I say it shouldn't mean this, it did always mean socially liberal positions, keeping check on authority, that sort of thing. It still does, just now it tends to mean the other stuff as well. The free marketeers appropriated the word for their means, tossers :P

 

Noam Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian Socialist I believe, pretty sure Tony Benn does as well. But if someone calls themselves exclusively Libertarian, they will likely be antithesis to socialists.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I never said authoritarianism and socialism go hand in hand. I never even implied it.

 

Sorry, this was me making a naïve leap to a conclusion.

 

You're missing my point a bit, people who call themselves Libertarians nowadays nearly always mean economic Libertarians. Which in turn means 'leave everything to the market' 'welfarism is evil'.

 

http://lpuk.org/

 

Like I say it shouldn't mean this, it did always mean socially liberal positions, keeping check on authority, that sort of thing. It still does, just now it tends to mean the other stuff as well. The free marketeers appropriated the word for their means, tossers :P

 

Noam Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian Socialist I believe, pretty sure Tony Benn does as well. But if someone calls themselves exclusively Libertarian, they will likely be antithesis to socialists.

 

Ah, then we agree completely. It's a distinction I am very specific about since I myself have very libertarian views while being a socialist.