Print Story Apologies for the light blogging.
Diary
By Breaker (Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:06:08 AM EST) (all tags)
And apologies for the lightness of this Super Soaraway BreakerMatic Diary!  Real Life - It Gets In The Way.

I will attempt to make up the shortfall with extra vitriol, just so you don't feel shortchanged.

There is after all a recession on, which started in America.  I'm getting on with the job, because it is the Right Thing To Do, unlike the Tories, who would do nothing for the many but only for the few. 

Let me be clear, British Jobs For British Workers, except when EU accession states are involved.



52% of GDP spent by Government.

For you fuckwit leftist all-property-is-theft[1]  loonidiots, how much more tax can the Government steal from private enterprise before business shuts up shop and fucks off elsewhere?

Krugman, the leftist "economist" now retreats to the province of defeat and protectionism.

UAF - Unite for Fascism.  Ringleader arrested on charges of incitement.  Depending on who you read, the vast majority of the arrests were UAF tools.  Well, done, leftists, your true colours exposed.  Against racism, against patriotism, against capitalism, but very much up for violence.

Sums it all up really, you can't even get your tits out in this straightjacket State without getting arrested.

Civil liberties, or lack thereof (note, link takes you to extremist right wing website).  It's all getting a bit Frankfurt OldSkool, isn't it?

Still, as long as our Lords and Masters get their fucking bit it's all OK then.

[1] Pretty much all of you, judging by comments and mods.

< I can be quite impulsive at times. | Planned deckwork for the train layout >
Apologies for the light blogging. | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Just vote Lib Dem by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:11:12 AM EST
They're a bit mental but at least they're not utter shits.
The media war is really revolting. Someone released 'saucy' pics of Cameron's wife, now they announce she's pregnant on a timeline that seems a bit tight for telling anyone but friends and family. Everything is to be sacrificed for power, it seems, with dignity going first.


I will have to. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:17:37 AM EST
Labour out this election, UKIP for choice next time around.  LimpDumbs are more of the same.

And yeah, pretty shameless electioneering from Tories / Labour / LD.


[ Parent ]
Correction by hulver (4.00 / 2) #2 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:16:31 AM EST
Sums it all up really, you can't even get your tits out get drunk and smack a bouncer in the face with a shoe in this straightjacket State without getting arrested.

HTH.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

Tsk. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #4 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:19:10 AM EST
BreakerMatic diary.  Do you honestly expect verity and clarity? [1]

[1] Truth and clearness, not the burlesque dancing duo.


[ Parent ]
52% of GDP spent by Government by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:11:43 AM EST
You can't really blame the government for the private sector failing to make money, which even the Telegraph is forced to admit. With the fourth lowest VAT rate in the EU (only bested by Spain, Luxembourg and Cyprus) and lately a favourable exchange rate relative to the Eurozone, it boggles the mind that private enterprise in England apparently can't entrepreneurize their way out of a brown paper bag.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

he's immune to logic by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:12:24 AM EST

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
If that's what passes for logic on the left by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:15:19 AM EST
No fucking wonder we're in the state we are.


[ Parent ]
VAT is not the only cost of business. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #7 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:30:05 AM EST
You also have corporation tax, NI and regulatory compliance costs.  It costs about double the salary of an employee to employ them.

This is not conducive to the entrepreneurial spirit.

Tax on business must rise to keep the Government coffers full[1] of stolen money to prop up the 52%, at which point it becomes even more expensive to run a business.

[1] "Full" being a figurative term as the coffers of the nation resemble a leaky bucket at the minute.


[ Parent ]
Here's a fundamental question by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:37:26 AM EST
In your world view, what is business for?


[ Parent ]
Fundamentally, by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:56:13 AM EST
Profit.

What do you think?


[ Parent ]
Yeah but by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:07:44 AM EST
Then what?


[ Parent ]
Full stop. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:16:25 AM EST
Profit.  That's what businesses are for.

To claim otherwise is foolish at best, to regulate otherwise is insanity writ large in statute and law.


[ Parent ]
Yeah but by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:26:59 AM EST
What is the profit for?
Keeping score in a game?
Spending on stuff?
Rollling back in to sustain growth?

I'm trying (genuinely) to work out how your ideal model fits together.


[ Parent ]
Profit by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:30:43 AM EST
To return to shareholders as reward for using their money, and to plough back into the business to attain growth.

I'm not too sure exactly where you're going with this.

What do you think business is for?  Note that's "is" not "should be".


[ Parent ]
I'm thinking by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:35:38 AM EST
That while you mainly worry about the overhead of and benefits to society of govt., I tend to worry similar about business - how much does it 'take' from people in terms of time, stress about job security etc. vs what does it give back - money to spend, places to spend it (which then hire more people which etc etc.). The purpose of business is, like the purpose of government, to serve the functioning of society for the benefit of the people in it, and not the other way around.


[ Parent ]
No it isn't by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:47:44 AM EST
The purpose of a shark is not to cull the sick from the herd, or scavenge the already dead.  It is to be a shark to be a shark today and a shark tomorrow.

Whilst we'd like businesses to be lovely fluffy bunnies on a bed of freshly mown sweet smelling meadow, it's not like that, as you well know and that is where your concern originates I think.

Now, you might see business as a function of society, and therefore beholden to put society first, but sadly it is not like that.  Businesses are very often the enemy of society; as too are Governments.

The difference being you get an easily made choice when you interact with business; not so with Government.

If two coffeeshops are adjacent, and one does Fairtrade coffee and the other doesn't, would you buy the Fairtrade, even at a premium?  It is in this way that society "polices" business, rewarding "desirable" behaviour. 

In the information age we are in, I can see this kind of dividing line becoming more prevalent.  Business will be better to society if society cares enough to make them behave in that way.

Now, with business I can withold my business or give my trade to a competitor.  That's not the case with Government, especially in England where we have 3 main parties squabbling over the same vaguely leftish ground.

So, I either whinge about it (see BreakerMatic diaries passim), or I get my tin foil hat on and declare myself a Freeman of the Land.


[ Parent ]
I think by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:54:42 AM EST
I feel a peculiar urge to sing a Disney song.


[ Parent ]
Ah the economics of the left by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:10:52 AM EST
When the debate gets serious, sing a Disney tune!

I wonder if that's how Gordon "Texture Like Debt" Brown ran the Treasury when he was Chancer of the Exchequer?


[ Parent ]
here's another way of looking at it by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:20:56 AM EST
Your shark is a shark is a shark.
But it does not normally engage in behaviour that can undermine the conditions necessary for it to be, well, sharky.

Citizens, govt and business can all do things that break the balance and threaten their own survival in this way of life. In that equation, self interest really says I've got to err on the side of the citizen against the other two, as citizen is my one essential attribute that I have access to and can develop from. Next step, as citizen, who, on paper do I have control of? Business can survive by divide and conquer, govt (ideally) less so. So if I have to make a tactical alliance against business on some matters, I should do it. On the other hand, it is not in my interest to push it so hard that I break business, or then there's none of that tasty profit plankton floating around for me and govt to feed off.

It should all be a balance motivated by enlightened self interest. Unfortunately humans fuck that up, but that's no reason to side with business against them.


[ Parent ]
Fair points by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:47:36 AM EST
Unfortunately humans fuck that up

And here is the real problem, I think.


[ Parent ]
"business as a function of society" by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #34 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:57:46 AM EST
Corporations are created by law; otherwise we'd still all be personally liable when starting a business. If the society can create the judicial framework for corporations, then it is surely also within its power to make demands of them.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
There is no perfect law by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05:23 AM EST
That a skilled corporate lawyer cannot subvert, at least for a little while.

Whilst we may not be able to codify exactly what makes a good corporate citizen, if we have the information we can usually judge for ourselves.


[ Parent ]
I'm a fan of that point by lm (4.00 / 2) #62 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:33:02 PM EST
It seems to me that taxpayers are effectively eating  the true costs of investment because shareholders have no liability beyond the opportunity cost of their investment.

Now, if shareholders were liable proportionately for any misdeeds of the corporations in which they hold shares, perhaps they would actually pay attention to who gets elected as corporate officers through that proxy ballot.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Double the salary? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:28:27 AM EST
So hyperbolic it doesn't deserve a response.

[ Parent ]
It's all hyperbole by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:37:12 AM EST
Oh wait no it isn't.


[ Parent ]
Oh, my mistake. by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #64 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:17:57 PM EST
It turns out that in the context of that one particular comment you were talking about the cost of employing people, not payroll costs.

[ Parent ]
VAT isn't a business cost at all by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:55:56 AM EST
Unless you do not, literally, add any value as part of your enterprise, VAT is not an expense. It's a surcharge on the consumer for buying your goods, though, and on that score UK businesses are better off than most other European businesses.

As for entrepreneurship, the UK isn't doing too bad compared to some other EU countries, and even outdoing nascent economies* like Malaysia and Romania (source, chart p22). (You're better than Denmark, worse than Norway and about on par with Finland, so the local tax regime doesn't seem to factor that much into it if we assume that you won't find more Draconian taxation levels than in the Nordic countries.)

*) In general, the more developed a country's economy is, the lower the entrepreneurial activity rate.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
It is by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:59:11 AM EST
Unless you're VAT registered.  And even then, you act as an unpaid collector of revenue for the Government.


[ Parent ]
If you're not VAT registered by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:00:59 AM EST
you're a consumer, not a business.

And yes, we're all unpaid tax collectors for the government. How the fuck would you do otherwise? Pay companies to balance their books?
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:08:59 AM EST
Says "Ltd" after my company name, registered at Companies House.

Revenue collection - another overhead to business, was the point I was making.


[ Parent ]
YMMV by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:12:47 AM EST
I don't know exactly how the UK system works. What you seem to be saying is that even though you are run a Ltd company, you do not apply VAT to your services, nor do you recoup VAT you pay on work-related expenses? If so, that is clearly bollocks.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Nope. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:17:28 AM EST
Unless your turnover is 50K or over, you can't VAT register, so you can't charge it nor avoid paying it on raw materials.

We do however get a small allowance to offset against VAT, which dropped when the 15% VAT rate came in, meaning we could claim less back. 

NuLabia - supporting small businesses with joined up Government.

Or not.


[ Parent ]
LOL by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:49:36 AM EST
That's pretty much upside down.

In Denmark, everybody can be VAT registered. If your annual revenue is less than (I think around) UK£ 3000 VAT registration isn't mandatory.

I think the tax and revenue authorities monitor companies with very limited revenue to check that they're not just a way for people to avoid paying VAT on their new laptop, but even so you (as in the UKians) are more likely to start a business than a Dane is.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Heh by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:51:05 AM EST
I didn't write the rules but I'm sure it made sense to someone, at some point!


[ Parent ]
Well, it would be upside down by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #57 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:54:53 PM EST
If that were the case. There's voluntary VAT registration in this country too.

[ Parent ]
With an attendant by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #60 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:57:45 PM EST
Bundle of extra regulation piled on top.


[ Parent ]
Where did you get the £50k figure from by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #55 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:50:49 PM EST
You must register for VAT if your turnover is above £68k; as far as I can tell you can voluntarily register if your turnover is 20p(+VAT)

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/register/when-to-register.htm#5



Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
That was what it was by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #56 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:52:34 PM EST
A few years back.


[ Parent ]
It was the compulsory threshold by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #58 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:55:36 PM EST
You could still voluntarily register for VAT on any turnover value.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
What happened to by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #9 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:38:47 AM EST
Your inflation report? Last time you insisted that the rise in inflation after VAT went up was a sign we're finally entering the long-predicted Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation. Odd that you haven't bothered to mention it dropped in today's figures.

The ridiculous UAF arrests: already discussed here. As a follower of Bolton news, odd that you didn't mention the stabbing apparently done by your EDL chums.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

In these straightened times by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:00:55 AM EST
BreakerMatic diaries are 10% lighter on content, especially economics.  This is due to 5 quid a meg restrictions when overseas, which began in America no more boom and bust rightthingtodo.

Inflation drops as the economy contracts yet further?  I don't have the bandwidth to research that further, but I'm sure you'll trot out some misguided leftist economist trying to shore up the damage in your blinkered worldview.

I'd like to make it perfectly clear I am no supporter of EDL, and I'd thank you to retract the claim that I am.

I'm no support of Unite For Fascism either, for the record.


[ Parent ]
as far as economics go.. by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:06:57 AM EST
I don't think he's advocated anything left-wing, and most of his links are to reasonable centrist or even libertarian sources. But if they disagree with you, they must be on the left, sure.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
Who are you talking about? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:23:32 AM EST
TE, or Krugman?

This is a BreakerMatic diary; everyone is to the left of me, including Attila the Hun.


[ Parent ]
TE by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:44:36 AM EST

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
No links this time by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:49:21 AM EST
But he's got form.


[ Parent ]
Contracting economy? by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:12:46 AM EST
GDP figures are quarterly, and we don't yet know whether the economy grew or contacted in Q1 2010. Seems a bit unlikely given that it grew in Q4 2009, though it could be a double-dip.

If you're predicting a contraction though, I'll be happy to remind you about it when the figures come out...
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Mebbe, mebbe not by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:21:26 AM EST
Very limited internet access so can't sniff usual sources.  I am hoping for an improvement on growth compared to January, but that is largely wishful thinking and not based on any fundamentals.

Now, about your retraction which I asked for above - is that forthcoming or would you just like to shout RACIST at me and continue the nuanced and delicate debate so favoured of the left by shouting it again?


[ Parent ]
Here's how it works by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #44 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:19:36 AM EST
People generally reply with the level of politeness that they're addressed with.

When you start off by calling me a fascist and a tool since I'm a UAF member you don't get to be all precious and sensitive about how I reply to you.

But to show there's no hard feeling, here's a nice video for you to cheer at: 89 year-old WW2 veteran and "UAF fascist tool" knocked down by those heroic Bolton policemen. Gloat away.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Oh we're all sensitive souls here today. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:44:55 AM EST
And delicate little flowers, unique precious snowflakes etc.

Now, I wrote "the vast majority of the arrests were UAF tools".  Not all UAF members, but those arrested

For you to assume that that was directed at you shows a certain amount of arrogance; I write BreakerMatic diaries for my own pleasure - not to single you, personally, out. 

Whilst in no way condoning the actions of the police (which for the record I believe was over the top and heavy handed), what exactly do UAF members think that is going to happen when counterprotesting against the EDL? 

I may be wrong, but I thought EDL was borne out of various violent football hooligan gangs et al; UAF protestors showing up to tweak their tails surely cannot expect these people to sit down and have a cup of tea and a natter to each other, can they?

In fact, the very presence of the UAF at EDL marches publicises them further due to the violence; why do you even bother giving the EDL the time of day? 

Why not protest at the other side of the town or country, even?


[ Parent ]
I already addressed those points by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44:53 AM EST
In the other thread. The EDL are attempting to intimidate minorities. To counter that, it needs to be shown that they're opposed by ordinary people not just cops who will knock off at 5PM. not just cops who will knock off at 5PM.

What nobody expected at the demo was a daft police chief to order snatch squads into the crowd to arrest the middle-aged organizers who urge everyone else on the demo to keep calm and stay peaceful. Nobody expected that because it's a unprecedentedly stupid idea.  As Weyman Bennet says:

"For the last 30 years, I have been on demonstrations to protest against racism and fascism. But this is the first demonstration where I have suffered arrest."

--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Ah of course by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:47:34 PM EST
It's the other guys who cause all the problems.

But police baton charges should really be a lst resort, and not the first, as it would appear here.


[ Parent ]
What problems? by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #59 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:34:11 PM EST
You're constantly spouting EDL slogans: "UAF are the real fascists", "UAF are violent".

Show me some evidence of UAF violence. Show me some news reports about UAF supporters who've stabbed people in pubs. Show me some videos of UAF supporters kicking a policeman on the ground.

Also, you can stop playing coy when I call you a friend of the EDL. It's clear from the way you keep repeating their slogans that you're reading their websites with sympathy, and have bought into at least some of their ideas.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Well, by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #61 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:19:17 PM EST
Where to start.

And indeed, where to end.

Let's just start with I am no friend of the EDL, nor am I the friend of the UAF. 

Have you got that yet?

You've demonstrated an unwillingness to accept that fact, so I'll repeat - I am no friend of the EDL, nor am I the friend of the UAF.

Distasteful as I find both groups, I would not seek to deny either group a voice, within the clearly codified limits of free speech and lawful conduct.

Having neither frequented "EDL websites"[1] nor listened to their slogans, it's yet again you hearing the voices in your head (and probably propaganda from those UAF affiliated websites that you frequent, reading them with sympathy [2]) and attributing them to me.

Do UAF supporters and demonstrators wear distinctive clothing?  And is that clothing only worn when demonstrating?

UAF want to deny nutters a voice.  I say, let the nutters speak, for they will betray themselves with their own words, in the cold light of day. 

Sadly, the UAF in its misguided, confrontational manner, will only make themselves walk and talk like nutters, but will also be condemned in the same bin.  Nutters.

I applaud the UAF's plan, for fascism is never a good longterm plan for any nation, but the execution is completely wrong. 

Idiots are only going to beat you down to their level, and then bludgeon you with experience. 

And in the case of the EDL, that bludgeoning may not be figurative.

[1] First and only time I looked at an EDL website was in response to seeing that documentary, which I diarised about at the time.

[2] See, I can do it too.


[ Parent ]
I don't believe you by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #63 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:48:42 PM EST
You keep asserting those two things ("UAF are the real fascists", "UAF are violent") and believe them unquestioningly without any supporting evidence.

There's only one thing that gives you that kind of absolute certainty: you've read it on a right-wing blog, so it must be true.

Moreover, I don't think you see the irony here. On other topics, you're constantly claiming to believe that government is not the answer, that it's up to individuals to take responsibility, that we shouldn't sit back and wait for the government and its agents to solve everything.

So what's your opinion on dealing with the rise of the far right? Yep, sit back and wait for the government and its agents to solve everything.

When it comes to vague airy-fairy blather, you're all in favour of individual responsibility. Whenever it comes to something that might involve actual work or action, you always do the same thing. Find a little nitpick or necessary compromise you disagree with, and sit back on your lazy fat arse and do nothing. Oh yeah, and post endless masturbatory self-congratulatory rants on the Internet. Well done. You're a shining example of individual responsibility.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
What will it take to convince you? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #66 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:45:40 AM EST
Firewall & proxy logs?

I know it's  a stretch for those on the left to consider anything approaching independent thought but I was expecting better from you, at least.  But hey, off you go with your groupthink, there's safety but not intelligence in numbers, at least.  Even my "lazy, fat arse" sees that.

Supporting evidence?  How many arrests do you need?

My opinion of the "far right" is that there is no such thing.  BNP are so fucking leftist it's a miracle they are described as right wing.  Have you read their manifesto?

You're being needlessly antagonistic here, I think.  At what point have I called for Governmental intervention here?  You make the typical leftist case here, build up a strawman and then attack it.

And yet again, you have ducked the critical questions:
Do UAF supporters and demonstrators wear distinctive clothing?  And is that clothing only worn when demonstrating?


[ Parent ]
So by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #67 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:45:06 AM EST
According to you, there's no such thing as the Far Right, the Times business pages are controlled by the Left, and everyone to the left of that is Far Left?

I wonder if there are fish who think there's no such thing as water.

Regarding clothes, as you can see from the demo video I linked to, most UAF people wear casual or studenty clothes, though WW2 veterans may wear suits people wear casual or studenty clothes, though WW2 veterans may wear suits and medals. Or did you read on a far right centrist blog that UAF members wear Nazi uniforms, and so are bound to believe it forever UAF members wear Nazi uniforms, and so are bound to believe it forever whatever your mere eyes tell you?

You still haven't shown me evidence of UAF violence, despite the fact that camera crews filmed the whole demo. Charges for obstruction and the daft"conspiracy" charge against Weyman Bennett don't amount to violence unlike the actual stabbing done by your EDL friends.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Far right by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #68 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:28 AM EST
Would surely be advocating absolute minimal government, smallest state possible state and lowest tax?  Can you point me to an organisation that exhorts followers to take to the streets to further that aim?

I mention clothes as EDL thugs do indeed like to drape themselves in the livery of the national flag and idetify themselves in that way. 

But if a UAF crusty stabs someone in their "casual studenty" clothing, you can't say for sure if they're a UAF supporter or not.

Kind of handy, being able to blend into the crowd in those casual clothes, isn't it?

So according to your "logic",  "conspiracy to incite violence" is a non-law?  Also bear in mind your link to the Bolton stabbing was conducted by "alleged supporters of the English Defence League", not convicted supporters of the EDL.

So conspiracy to commit terrorism is also not "violence"?

Do you even have a coherent argument to make here, or are you just dining on leftist reactionary bile and finding it a feast?


[ Parent ]
Nope by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #69 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:13:43 AM EST
The libertarian/statist axis is different ("orthogonal") to the left/right axis. Examples: traditional Marxists who think that the state will wither away leaving Examples: traditional Marxists who think that the state will wither away leaving a perfect anarchy; the  right wing defence of the Corn Laws forbidding free trade in grain, etc.

There was a period in the Eighties when the right wing parties in the US and UK leaned towards the libertarian axis, at least in terms of rhetoric and some privatizations, but it didn't really last.(I'm going through this course at the moment, he's pretty good on the way the conservative parties shifted from active hostility to grudging acceptance of the free market)

So your evidence of UAF fascist violence is that UAF members wear normal clothes, and so their violence is undetected? That's ridiculous. For one thing, you can't further your cause by intimidation unless the people you're you can't further your cause by intimidation unless the people you're intimidating know what your cause is. That's why the EDL dress up and the UAF don't. And why the original Nazis dressed up.

Regarding arrests, as I pointed on in my diary of the Geert Wilders demo outside Parliament, the police use them for crowd control: "stand over there or I'll arrest you": nothing to do with violence.

You like predictions, so here's one from me: either the charge against Weyman Bennett will be dropped, or he will be found innocent. I expect to be judged on this, and will apologize if I'm wrong. (Since I possess gonads and a sense of responsibility, I'm willing to do that kind of thing).
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Undetected violence by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #70 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:42:26 AM EST
For all I know UAF supporters are all Jolly Good Eggs, love their mothers and donate time and money to charity.

But without a visible sign they are UAF supporters, how do you know that the person pouring the soup for the homeless is UAF?

I make no accusation (in the comments) of the UAF being violent, only noting that if they are, it is hard to identify them as such.

The charge against Bennett is not simply not moving out of the way now, is it?

you can't further your cause by intimidation unless the people you're you can't further your cause by intimidation

Proofreading; it's what's for dinner.  Either that or you're so incensed by anyone questioning your deep seated beliefs you're rendered incoherent with rage.  Time to clean the spittle off your monitor and have a little lie down in a quiet room, perhaps?


[ Parent ]
As I've said before, I'm posting from a phone by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #71 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:56:27 AM EST
You'll just have to cope with the odd typo and pasting glitch.

You said in the post "very much up for violence", and haven't retracted that.

And as I've said several times now, the charge against Bennett is baseless and wholly ridiculous.

You accuse the UAF of being fascists. Fascists demonstrate in uniforms. Now you turn around and say they're fascists because they don't wear uniforms. You're not consistent.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
So by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #72 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:12:15 AM EST
UAF supporters think that counterprotesting (I believe shouting "scum" is the epitome of the argument) against a bunch of people who have already demonstrated a propensity for violence is not in fact evidence of being up for a rumble?

I'm not entirely sure where your assertion that fascists must wear uniforms comes from.

Tell you what, I retract UAF = fascists and replace it with UAF = would be deniers of free speech.

Does that sit better with you?


[ Parent ]
Would you say by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #73 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:38:25 AM EST
Gandhi was always "up for a rumble", since he confronted militias? It's possible to peacefully oppose violence without being violent.

On free speech, there's always going to be a grey area where yoiu try to draw a line between free speech; and threats and intimidation. When the EDL threatened Asian taxi drivers in Stoke, that's not free speech. I'd prefer it if the UAF drew the line further towards free speech. But by general UK standards, I'm a free speech extremist. If you're going to affect the society you live in, you need to ally with other people, so you don't get to dictate every decision.

If you won't participate in a political activity except on terms where everything is done your way, then you end up just an impotent Internet whiner.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
It is by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #74 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:48:41 AM EST
But when those opposed turn violent, then what?


[ Parent ]
Luke 6:29 [nt] by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #75 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:24:15 AM EST

--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Wayne 18:42 by Breaker (1.00 / 1) #76 Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:32:56 AM EST
NT


[ Parent ]
The vast majority of the arrests were by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #65 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:24:13 PM EST
Negroe rioters.

Hey, HEY, HEY NOW!! Don't get offended, you thin-skinned pussy! I wasn't only talking about all Ni66er rioters, only those arrested.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
If economics is a real science by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:51:22 AM EST
Then what does it matter if the economist is leftist or rightist? "Science" uses fact, not political bias.

If economics isn't a real science, then why do you bother posting anything?

--
Vive le Montréal libre.

[ Parent ]
Ah by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:57:46 AM EST
Two economists may measure the same data but come to two different ways of solving the underlying problem.

Why do I bother posting?  Why do you bother reading?


[ Parent ]
Ah, so what you're saying is.. by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:42:27 AM EST
Any "recommendations" or "interpretations" by economists are just thinly veiled attempts to push their own underlying political biases.

I think we finally agreed on something, Breaker!

--
Vive le Montréal libre.

[ Parent ]
Yep. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:49:41 AM EST
Not all though.  Economists guiding governments do put a bit of spin on things though.

And whether that is a left wing bias, or a right wing bias, it is still a bias. 


[ Parent ]
Businesses going elsewhere by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #15 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:51:04 AM EST
This is why socialism is internationalist. If they've got no-where to go they're just going to have to put up with it.

The idea is to sneak it in through the back door using organisations like the EU and the UN.

By any means necessary.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

global world conspiracy for the win! by garlic (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:30:37 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Back door socialism by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:33:26 AM EST
Did anyone vote for that?


[ Parent ]
More Right Wing Hate Speech by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:56:11 AM EST
From a noted American Right Wing Journal: Ann Coulter threatened with arrest for Hate Speech.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

I don't know who she is or what she said by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:02:25 AM EST
But free speech except for people we don't agree with isn't a good starting point for society, is it?


[ Parent ]
Afternoon ! by Phage (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13:14 AM EST
Heh. I got into terrible trouble for my slightly liberterian view point on a midlands-based tech site. Serious neo-marxists there.
When you see the growth in Government employment esp. in the Midlands and North, you can see why.
"The figures showed public sector employment rose by 7,000 in the final quarter of last year to 6.1m while private sector employment tumbled by 61,000."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2e66232-31ab-11df-9ef5-00144feabdc0.html

Apologies for the light blogging. | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback