Hazel Blears's car smashed up while she speaks to voters

[xoggoth]

Agree with HAB. It should be a last resort but if you rule out civil unrest (against the right targets as in this case) or violent protest under any circumstances you may as well give up. People marched peacefully against the Iraq war. Where did it get them?

This government will not take account of the electorate's views on any major issue, no matter how widespread or longstanding and I think the point of last resort has been reached and passed. People like to say violence solves nothing but history indicates that there has rarely been an advance in democracy without it.

If only we had the organisation and common purpose to do what some have done in Georgia, Iran, the former USSR.

[Green Mango]

Agree with HAB. It should be a last resort but if you rule out civil unrest (against the right targets as in this case) or violent protest under any circumstances you may as well give up. People marched peacefully against the Iraq war. Where did it get them?

This government will not take account of the electorate's views on any major issue, no matter how widespread or longstanding and I think the point of last resort has been reached and passed. People like to say violence solves nothing but history indicates that there has rarely been an advance in democracy without it.

If only we had the organisation and common purpose to do what some have done in Georgia, Iran, the former USSR.

You get a vote. You've got the ability to write in the press. You can protest in the streets.

However, once you engage violence in the streets and if other people join you all we will have is anarchy !!!

I think you'd agree that is not desirable.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Agree with HAB. It should be a last resort but if you rule out civil unrest (against the right targets as in this case) or violent protest under any circumstances you may as well give up. People marched peacefully against the Iraq war. Where did it get them?

This government will not take account of the electorate's views on any major issue, no matter how widespread or longstanding and I think the point of last resort has been reached and passed. People like to say violence solves nothing but history indicates that there has rarely been an advance in democracy without it.

If only we had the organisation and common purpose to do what some have done in Georgia, Iran, the former USSR.

The problem with civil unrest is it's legitimate up until the point someone uses it to smash up something/someone you approve of. Here's a list of undemocratic protests with varying degrees of violence just off the top of my head - how many do you regard as legitimate?

1981 Brixton and Toxteth riots
1983 3 million across Europe demonstrate against US nuclear weapons - 300,000 in London
1984 Miners Strike
2000 Fuel Protests
2002 Pro-Hunting March - 400,000 people

[xoggoth]

I would point out that people have a vote in Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea. They had elections in most former USSR states too. Voting on its own does not make a real democracy.

As for letters to papers, look at the huge numbers protesting about excessive surveillance, misuse of powers, stupid wars, uncontrolled immigration, lack of the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty, MPs making their own rules. Look at the headlines of the papers themselves. Look at the polls on these issues. Where does it get anyone exactly?

PS Of the ones mentioned, the Brixton riots were the most violent and acheived slightly more than the others (the Scarman report and a little bit of investment), the others acheived zilch. More violence needed. QED

[Bagpuss]

It could be argued nothing ever changes without direct action

Poll Tax - brought down the community charge and the Party Leader
Fuel Protests - initially had some effect

Suffragetts
Civil Rights in US
Tiananmen Square
Vietnam Protests

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It could be argued nothing ever changes without direct action

Poll Tax - brought down the community charge and the Party Leader
Fuel Protests - initially had some effect

Suffragetts
Civil Rights in US
Tiananmen Square
Vietnam Protests

Indeed it could, but it's not a good argument for advocating smashing up Blears' car really is it?

She's hardly unique - a self-serving small time party poodle trying to climb the greasy pole of her own gang - plenty like her from all the major parties - we're not going to get far without smashing all of their cars up.

And what has Tiananmen Square achieved? btw

[Bagpuss]

No attacking Fuzzy Blears' Citroen isn't really going to acheive anything other than encourage her to scrounge some more off the taxpayer. But as a wider point nothing ever changes through political process alone.

[HairyArsedBloke]

They won't admit it, but this has probably scared them tulipless. The people rising up against them!

All of a sudden thee image of nuLieBore MP's swinging from lampposts is just a little bit less far-fetched.

[Churchill]

They won't admit it, but this has probably scared them tulipless. The people rising up against them!

All of a sudden thee image of nuLieBore MP's swinging from lampposts is just a little bit less far-fetched.

As I mentioned before, our police force is well trained in quashing civil unrest.

They can't prevent a riot from happening but when it does they can sure as hell stop it - and it will be messy.

[EternalOptimist]

However, once you engage violence in the streets and if other people join you all we will have is anarchy !!!

I think you'd agree that is not desirable.

Cheeky sod, telling people what they think.

Sometimes a little bit of anarchy can be a good thing