No idea about the UK, but in the US first-generation immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than US-born citizens.
Statistics are incomplete in the United Kingdom, but while recent immigrants are slightly over represented in the prison population, they are also more likely to be young adult men, quite overwhelmingly over represented in the prison population as a whole.
The best source for this kind of information is Migration Observatory, the name of which would make you think it is an offshoot of Reform but appears pretty sound to me, especially as the Home Office doesn’t publish much information on this topic, which only fans the fires.
Migration Observatory is a long term academic project into all aspects of migration into and out of the UK, run through Oxford University independently of the Home Office or other UK government agency (excepting research council money that is awarded on academic merit) or any of the various refugee and migrant agencies (from the UNHCR down to the local church putting on an afternoon to sample cuisine from the nice new folk living down the road). You can't get much more "sound" than that.
Besides, it doesn't always follow that economic depression leads to a right-ward swing in politics, and certainly not support for the far right. Oswald Mosley found that out in the 1930s, when he tried to organise mass demonstrations in working class communities across the country where the depression had resulted in mass unemployment. Repeatedly he found that working class men, especially unemployed working class men (who presumably had more free time than those still in employment), were more than willing to pick up broom handles and other implements and crack the heads of blackshirts parading through their communities.
Which is a rather romanticised view I'm afraid.
Moseley had a lot of working class support in Stoke on Trent, for instance and also in Birmingham and other large cities. There were of course working class fellas who opposed the Black Shirts but we also have to accept that many didn't and that Moseley did garner working class support - as indeed Reform are doing.
Come and visit me. I can take you to places where that's readily apparent.
I've heard, if not actually read, that Hitler thought Mosley made a big mistake by dressing up his followers in uniforms, because the British(or so Hitler thought) don't react well to militaristic imagery.
The situation was pretty mixed in The Potteries. My son-in-law's great grandmother on his father's side was a very active Communist but left the Party because she felt 'Uncle Joe' Stalin exerted too much influence.
Or so family legend runs.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
I have a friend whose grandfather was in the Blackshirts. She still has his belt with the insignia on the buckle. It's a chilling piece of kit.
The family are deeply ashamed of him of course, not only was he a fascist but he was an inveterate philanderer. He ran a pub on the South Downs had serial affairs and drilled local men by night until we'll after the War apparently. Although, bizarrely perhaps, he volunteered for ground duties with the RAF during the War because, even though he was fascist in his politics he didn't like the idea of Hitler bombing or invading Britain.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
FWIW, George Orwell wrote in England Your England that the English are characterized by, among other qualities, a "reverence for law" and a "hatred for uniforms". Though I have often thought that his commentary on the English character is a little over-egged. "Old maids bicycling to Holy Communion in the morning mist" strikes me as something you coulda seen anywhere with churches offering daily sacraments.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
FWIW, George Orwell wrote in England Your England that the English are characterized by, among other qualities, a "reverence for law" and a "hatred for uniforms". Though I have often thought that his commentary on the English character is a little over-egged. "Old maids bicycling to Holy Communion in the morning mist" strikes me as something you coulda seen anywhere with churches offering daily sacraments.
Except they wouldn't necessarily have morning mist.
Also, how does Orwell's, and John Major's misquotation, imply 'daily sacraments'?
It could be a Sunday morning or, at a stretch, a midweek communion.
Other than full-on Anglo-Catholic parishes you'd have been hard-pressed to find daily communion anywhere.
Step even further outside.
I think I meant something like "regular Communion". IOW it happens frequently enough that seeing people attend it can be viewed as a culturally typical experience.
And I don't think I was aware John Major had quoted the line. That was part of Back To Basics?
Also, how does Orwell's, and John Major's misquotation, imply 'daily sacraments'?
It could be a Sunday morning or, at a stretch, a midweek communion.
Other than full-on Anglo-Catholic parishes you'd have been hard-pressed to find daily communion anywhere.
Step even further outside.
I think I meant something like "regular Communion". IOW it happens frequently enough that seeing people attend it can be viewed as a culturally typical experience.
And I don't think I was aware John Major had quoted the line. That was part of Back To Basics?
Not even close. No cigar.
It was in the context of the Maastricht Treaty and his attempt to convince fellow Conservatives that we had nothing to fear from continued membership of the EU.
The salient part (if I'm allowed to quote) is as follows:
'Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist” and if we get our way – Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials.
Surely we trust our own integrity as a people quite enough to fear nothing in Europe. We are the British, a people freely living inside a Europe which is glad to see us and wants us. After 20 years we have come of age in Europe. One Conservative leader put us there. This Conservative leader means us to thrive there. So let’s get on with it.'
Some 33 years on, my eyes mist up, but for different reasons than Major intended.
'The clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns... old maids biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings, these are not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene.'
The clatter of clogs had long gone - as had the mills - by 1993 but the misty autumn mornings were still there, even if there were less old maids biking through them to Holy Communion.
So, put the quote in context. Both Orwell's vision and Major's were highly idealised of course but intended to be more culturally indicative than you are allowing them to be. As I've said, you might get regular communion in plenty of places around the globe but there is something distinctive about a misty autumn morning here. Not that we have a monopoly on mist nor on autumn of course.
There could be other cultural indicators they might have chosen of course. I understand that the Spanish see 'hypocrisy' as the besetting British sin, and 'jealousy' as their own.
But nobody's going to put that in a wistful speech.
Given what's going on in UK politics at the moment even Major looks like a throw-back to a gentler and more civil age.
What has Anas Sarwar done that is so terribly wrong apart from being a politician you don't like? A quick check of the news strongly suggests he had condemned the riots in Belfast before the riots happened in Glasgow and that he has condemned the ones in Glasgow along with most of the other respectable Scottish politicians.
Precisely what I criticised: he qualified his condemnation with guff about "legitimate concerns". I named him because he was the one I saw a direct quote from.
As far as I am concerned, irrespective of what cause it is someone is demonstrating about, once it starts to mess other peoples's lives about, yet alone includes violence, criminal damage or the threat of either, it is not something that anyone has a right to do. It is not a way anyone is entitled to express themselves. The authorities are entitled to, and should, put in down with as much force as is necessary.
That is an incredibly low bar that rules out almost every large-scale protest, not to mention "as much force as is necessary" could easily be used to justify the likes of the Bloody Sunday massacre and the Battle of Orgreave. To which I say: Fuck. That.
I have had a very busy three days and this is the first opportunity I have had to come back and explain what I do think on this subject, particularly since I am sure @Arethosemyfeet will have misunderstood my position, but will still disagree with it vehemently when I explain it. I also disagree strongly with what I suspect his is.
My first point is that there is a descending scale from rebellion through sedition, riot, criminal damage and social disruption. All the same, as far as I am concerned any 'peaceful protest' that is legitimate is about demonstrating with a view to persuading other people, including the state, to agree with you. None of those, not even the last, are within that description of 'peaceful protest'. Even at the lowest level of these categories, why should bystanders be unable to get to hospital appointments or work because a fringe clique of environmentalist think it should be within their rights to block a motorway.
Where there is a breach of the peace, it is legitimate for the state to take whatever enforcement action may be appropriate to protect ordinary citizens and their property, to restore peace and to enable ordinary citizens to go about their day to day business without let or hindrance.
I have listed these on a descending scale of outrage. There may be grounds for discussion whether the state may in some cases have over-reacted, or whether the penalties in light of the particular level of disorder or other circumstances of the case may be disproportionate. Nevertheless engaging in sedition, riot, criminal damage or social disruption are not things a person can do unintentionally. People choose to do them because they think it will get their point across. By choosing to take part, one cannot then complain that it is unfair if one gets arrested, prosecuted or banged up.
My position, and this is the point where I suspect I will really be parting company with @Arethosemyfeet@chrisstiles and many other shipmates, is that it is largely irrelevant what the cause is for which people are putting their liberty, pockets or future job prospects at risk. The cause in which yobs have rioted in the last week in Southampton, Belfast, Glasgow is one utterly indefensible and without merit. So are the public figures here and abroad who have expressly or implicitly encouraged them to do so.
What I do not see, though, is how if most people agree that it is illegitimate to do do these things for a bad cause, it can somehow be all right to do them for a cause I agree with. That is 'our-boysism' - a term originally used of the two sides in Northern Ireland. There far too many law abiding citizens appeared to take the line that 'I accept some of our boys go a bit far but it is understandable because our cause is just and our lot have been provoked and have had to put up with a lot. Those, however, who perpetrate murder and outrages for the other side are nothing but wicked, unconscionable and bloodthirsty terrorists'.
Also, how does Orwell's, and John Major's misquotation, imply 'daily sacraments'?
It could be a Sunday morning or, at a stretch, a midweek communion.
Other than full-on Anglo-Catholic parishes you'd have been hard-pressed to find daily communion anywhere.
Step even further outside.
I agree. Even before 1939 or in the early 1950s, the sort of full-on Anglo-Catholic parishes that offered daily Holy Communion would have made a point of ostentatiously calling it Mass.
What has Anas Sarwar done that is so terribly wrong apart from being a politician you don't like? A quick check of the news strongly suggests he had condemned the riots in Belfast before the riots happened in Glasgow and that he has condemned the ones in Glasgow along with most of the other respectable Scottish politicians.
Precisely what I criticised: he qualified his condemnation with guff about "legitimate concerns". I named him because he was the one I saw a direct quote from.
As far as I am concerned, irrespective of what cause it is someone is demonstrating about, once it starts to mess other peoples's lives about, yet alone includes violence, criminal damage or the threat of either, it is not something that anyone has a right to do. It is not a way anyone is entitled to express themselves. The authorities are entitled to, and should, put in down with as much force as is necessary.
That is an incredibly low bar that rules out almost every large-scale protest, not to mention "as much force as is necessary" could easily be used to justify the likes of the Bloody Sunday massacre and the Battle of Orgreave. To which I say: Fuck. That.
I have had a very busy three days and this is the first opportunity I have had to come back and explain what I do think on this subject, particularly since I am sure @Arethosemyfeet will have misunderstood my position, but will still disagree with it vehemently when I explain it. I also disagree strongly with what I suspect his is.
My first point is that there is a descending scale from rebellion through sedition, riot, criminal damage and social disruption. All the same, as far as I am concerned any 'peaceful protest' that is legitimate is about demonstrating with a view to persuading other people, including the state, to agree with you. None of those, not even the last, are within that description of 'peaceful protest'. Even at the lowest level of these categories, why should bystanders be unable to get to hospital appointments or work because a fringe clique of environmentalist think it should be within their rights to block a motorway.
Where there is a breach of the peace, it is legitimate for the state to take whatever enforcement action may be appropriate to protect ordinary citizens and their property, to restore peace and to enable ordinary citizens to go about their day to day business without let or hindrance.
I have listed these on a descending scale of outrage. There may be grounds for discussion whether the state may in some cases have over-reacted, or whether the penalties in light of the particular level of disorder or other circumstances of the case may be disproportionate. Nevertheless engaging in sedition, riot, criminal damage or social disruption are not things a person can do unintentionally. People choose to do them because they think it will get their point across. By choosing to take part, one cannot then complain that it is unfair if one gets arrested, prosecuted or banged up.
My position, and this is the point where I suspect I will really be parting company with @Arethosemyfeet@chrisstiles and many other shipmates, is that it is largely irrelevant what the cause is for which people are putting their liberty, pockets or future job prospects at risk. The cause in which yobs have rioted in the last week in Southampton, Belfast, Glasgow is one utterly indefensible and without merit. So are the public figures here and abroad who have expressly or implicitly encouraged them to do so.
What I do not see, though, is how if most people agree that it is illegitimate to do do these things for a bad cause, it can somehow be all right to do them for a cause I agree with. That is 'our-boysism' - a term originally used of the two sides in Northern Ireland. There far too many law abiding citizens appeared to take the line that 'I accept some of our boys go a bit far but it is understandable because our cause is just and our lot have been provoked and have had to put up with a lot. Those, however, who perpetrate murder and outrages for the other side are nothing but wicked, unconscionable and bloodthirsty terrorists'.
The problem is that the bar of causing inconveience or disruption to others takes in industrial action and large scale demonstrations. It would be an utterly bonkers situation where you could get roads closed for events deemed "cultural" (like Orange marches) but as soon as there is an element of trying to change government policy or public opinion it becomes an outrage that legitimises the police going in mob-handed and forcing people to disperse.
And yes, it does make a difference what the "cause" is. The actions that are reasonable and legitimate to disrupt an ongoing genocide are broader in scope than those appropriate because you want the TV licence abolished. How is this even controversial?
Oh, and while you're trying the "both sides" thing, smashing up drones used to murder people is in no way equivalent to burning innocent civilians out of their homes.
While Orwell hailed from “my” state of the Pennines, I have always preferred J B Priestley. He has in a different league. We could use his intelligence and insight now.
My first point is that there is a descending scale from rebellion through sedition, riot, criminal damage and social disruption. All the same, as far as I am concerned any 'peaceful protest' that is legitimate is about demonstrating with a view to persuading other people, including the state, to agree with you.
I'm interested in this idea that 'the state' is a completely separate entity that is apart from the democratic sphere.
I'm also interested in your idea of 'peaceful protest' - can you tell me one bit of social change that has occurred via the kind of 'peaceful protest' you endorse?
If you get half a dozen people gathered somewhere with some placards, maybe a petition for people to sign, then you're causing a disturbance to someone's everyday life - they'll notice you are there, maybe have to move to the side of the pavement to walk past, say "not thank you" when someone comes up with the petition to sign. Not a great disturbance, I grant you, but disturbance nonetheless.
But, as @chrisstiles says, no social change has ever happened without someone creating some form of disturbance. It may be nice to think that a well formulated argument will convince everyone that you are right, but in practice that never seems to happen. It seems we always need to get out onto the streets and march, to chant our slogans and disrupt the peace and quiet of the normal life of people around about. We need to boycott goods, disrupting trade. We may need to campaign for peace by lying across the gates of military bases. Unions have usually found it necessary to strike, disrupting business and having a picket line. And, at times more direct action is necessary when we're convinced we're right and the government doesn't seem to be listening - there are plenty of examples of long term camps in places to keep things at public attention, or protestors gaining access to high profile events to make their case, even criminal damage. Of course, when protestors cross the line of breaking the law - trespass, breaking and entry or damage to property then we should be ready to face the legal consequences of that, and many such protestors have had their time in court and served time, which of course gives them a chance to explain why they did what they did to the jury (and, watching media) and maintain yet more attention to their cause.
Most of the Chartist's demands were met apart from yearly Parliaments. Was that the result of 'moral force' Chartism that believed in peaceful protest or 'physical force' Chartism which went in for more violent measures, such as the march on Newport in South Wales which was met with lethal force by the authorities?
Was it fear of violent revolution that brought about concessions and constitutional change?
Was it both/and?
Or something else?
Generally speaking those in positions of power or in autocratic regimes haven't tended to give way willingly to pressure, whether peaceful or otherwise.
But does that justify attacking people, be it police officers, security guards, politicians, people who disagree with us?
If you are a police officer hit by a brick thrown by a racist mob hell-bent on burning people out of their homes you are just as much injured as the one hit by a sledgehammer by Palestinian Action. The officer is still injured whatever our views on the rightness or otherwise of the cause.
Somehow there has to be a way between 'both sides-ism' on the one hand and 'our boys-ism' on the other.
Do I have sympathy for the rioters in Brixton and across the country in 1981. Yes. Do I sympathise with the rioters in Belfast, Glasgow and Southampton? No.
I make a choice as to where my sympathies lie.
Does that mean I don't care about the police officers, fire service personnel and others injured in those disturbances? No. Does it mean I condone the hacking to death of a police officer during the riots on the Broadwater Farm estate in 1985? Most certainly not.
Does deploring the fact that a police officer and security guards were injured by Palestinian Action protestors mean that I condone Israeli actions in Gaza and the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent people? No.
Does deploring the actions of Netanyahu and hard-line Israeli settlers on the West Bank mean I condone Hamas's terrorism and that of Hezbollah? No.
Does deploring the actions of Trump in bombing Iran mean I support that country's theocratic regime? No.
Somehow we have to get away from binary and polarised positions though. Easier said than done.
Lord Shaftesbury as true-blue a Tory as you could get, introduced legislation to reduce working hours, perhaps one of the most far-reaching and beneficial pieces of legislation to pass through Parliament. Ok, he did so because he thought it would encourage working class people to attend church and become well-behaved and morally upright evangelical Protestants. But he did it, even though he wasn't at all 'progressive' in his views - if we can apply that term anachronistically.
Does that mean that there wasn't a case for early trades unionism and lobbying/agitation by working people? No, of course it doesn't.
The situation was pretty mixed in The Potteries. My son-in-law's great grandmother on his father's side was a very active Communist but left the Party because she felt 'Uncle Joe' Stalin exerted too much influence.
Or so family legend runs.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
I have a friend whose grandfather was in the Blackshirts. She still has his belt with the insignia on the buckle. It's a chilling piece of kit.
The family are deeply ashamed of him of course, not only was he a fascist but he was an inveterate philanderer. He ran a pub on the South Downs had serial affairs and drilled local men by night until we'll after the War apparently. Although, bizarrely perhaps, he volunteered for ground duties with the RAF during the War because, even though he was fascist in his politics he didn't like the idea of Hitler bombing or invading Britain.
Opposition to Hitler was actually BUF policy - Mosley wanted an independent fascist Britain and opposed the idea of a German invasion.
Generally speaking those in positions of power or in autocratic regimes haven't tended to give way willingly to pressure, whether peaceful or otherwise.
But does that justify attacking people, be it police officers, security guards, politicians, people who disagree with us?
That's probably where the line of "you've gone too far" sits for me. No peaceful protest should involve assaulting individuals, certainly physically and in many cases going after them online with words. Protests are fundamentally related to policy, not people, and I don't think I could ever justify attacking anyone, especially people just doing their job (eg: police and security guards) or people uninvolved in making the policy being protested against (that certainly includes people who have obeyed the law as it is even if protestors object to that law, an obvious example being immigrants who have followed immigration laws being attacked by people who think those laws need to be more restrictive). I'm not too sure about the time honoured protest action of throwing harmless materials (eggs, flour, milkshake etc) at politicians; politicians are much more responsible for policy promotion than most people and hence that "people-policy" line is more blurred and so more appropriate as a target of protest, and apart from the need of a shower and laundry no real harm is done; on the other hand there's potential for that being much more serious, if someone can get close enough to throw a milkshake they're close enough to throw acid, or throw a punch or use a knife which is definitely unacceptable.
There probably are actions short of that I would have difficulty supporting - eg: blocking access for emergency services (at one protest recently with a march on a local defence firm supplying IDF, no one there objected to the instructions from the organisers to stay on the pavement outside the factory gates and keep the road, which is a primary route for ambulances into the local A&E, clear - indeed I think many protestors would go home if the organisers said we should block that road - even though that made hearing the speeches from the front that much harder). I'd also think twice about damage to public property and private property unrelated to the focus of the protest, especially damage that will take time or a significant amount of money to repair (drawing something in chalk or tying placards on lamp posts are, technically, damage to property but are not as serious as paint or broken windows). But a protest against arm sales that includes damage to the offices of the arms firm or some of the product they're selling ... well, that's a decision for protestors about whether they're willing to be arrested and tried for that.
The situation was pretty mixed in The Potteries. My son-in-law's great grandmother on his father's side was a very active Communist but left the Party because she felt 'Uncle Joe' Stalin exerted too much influence.
Or so family legend runs.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
I have a friend whose grandfather was in the Blackshirts. She still has his belt with the insignia on the buckle. It's a chilling piece of kit.
The family are deeply ashamed of him of course, not only was he a fascist but he was an inveterate philanderer. He ran a pub on the South Downs had serial affairs and drilled local men by night until we'll after the War apparently. Although, bizarrely perhaps, he volunteered for ground duties with the RAF during the War because, even though he was fascist in his politics he didn't like the idea of Hitler bombing or invading Britain.
Opposition to Hitler was actually BUF policy - Mosley wanted an independent fascist Britain and opposed the idea of a German invasion.
Fascism has always been nationalistic, so Mosley wanting an independent fascist Britain is no different from Hitler wanting an independent fascist Germany, Mussolini wanting an independent fascist Italy or Franco wanting an independent fascist Spain.
It's also clear that Hitler didn't want to invade Britain or France, he just wanted them to not interfere in his actions in what he considered to be part of "greater Germany" occupied by peoples he considered "subhuman". His evil racist views considered British and French to be part of the "superior" western European peoples, and that it was right that they had their own nations and empires colonising and ruling the "inferior" people of Africa and Asia. He considered the Slavic eastern European peoples to be "inferior" and that those nations were fair game for his ambitions for a new German empire. The invasion of France and plans to invade Britain were not part of his original plan, but a necessary reaction to the declarations of war following his invasion of Poland, his preference would seem to be that Britain and France simply never declared war and let him expand the Third Reich into eastern Europe.
@Alan Cresswell I remember an egregious incident at university when a particularly - and deservedly unpopular - senior Tory figure was invited to speak. He was unable to attend and a local replacement was found at the last minute.
Some students had ingeniously constructed a dummy version of the said politician which mechanically 'mouthed' along to a recorded speech before its head began to spin round and round and eventually fly off with impressive sparks and pyrotechnics.
The local Conservative substitute took that in good part and laughed with the rest of us, but was less impressed when he was egged after he'd finished his talk. He responded very calmly and with dignity. 'I see you believe in free speech ...'
A Marxist student immediately condemned the action angrily and the Student Union president apologised, rebuked the perpetrators and declared that the SU would pay for the dry-cleaning of the speaker's suit.
Rightly so in my opinion.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I'm not saying either course of action is acceptable nor diminishing the strong feelings of those who may feel it's acceptable or justified to do so.
But as soon as we step over a 'physically' disruptive line we get into all sorts of dilemmas.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I think criminal damage as part of protest is effectively a challenge to the jury to say "is what we've done worse than what we're aiming to prevent?" I think that criminal damage should be prosecuted on an equal basis regardless of "cause" but the jury should be allowed to hear all the context and arguments, and be informed if the judge intends to sentence the offence as terrorism, not have a judge acting on behalf of the security state to shut down anything that might make a jury think twice.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I think criminal damage as part of protest is effectively a challenge to the jury to say "is what we've done worse than what we're aiming to prevent?" I think that criminal damage should be prosecuted on an equal basis regardless of "cause" but the jury should be allowed to hear all the context and arguments, and be informed if the judge intends to sentence the offence as terrorism, not have a judge acting on behalf of the security state to shut down anything that might make a jury think twice.
I'd agree with all of that. If someone considers that a protest requires causing damage to something to prevent (in their view) greater harm then that protestor has decided to commit criminal damage, and they should expect to be arrested and put on trial for criminal damage, they are accepting the cost to themselves of taking their stand against what they see as injustice or greater immoral activities (that they would presumably want to be a crime).
Of course, it also follows that in a democracy like the UK they should receive a fair trial - that includes being able to put forward a defence for their actions on the basis of justification, and for the trial to be entirely transparent about the charges they will face. I'd also add that significant delays in bringing people to trial, especially if the accused are held in remand, is also a big problem.
I struggle to understand how the definition of "terrorism" has expanded in recent years to cover far more than what most people would think of as terrorism.
I struggle to understand how the definition of "terrorism" has expanded in recent years to cover far more than what most people would think of as terrorism.
Which is, of course, why a lot of people were suspicious of post-9/11 terrorism legislation.
I struggle to understand how the definition of "terrorism" has expanded in recent years to cover far more than what most people would think of as terrorism.
Which is, of course, why a lot of people were suspicious of post-9/11 terrorism legislation.
A good point, and it’s worth noting that a lot of legislation has been in response to lawbreaking, including violent acts. It’s usually panicky government ministers the media that describe acts as terrorism.
@Alan Cresswell I remember an egregious incident at university when a particularly - and deservedly unpopular - senior Tory figure was invited to speak. He was unable to attend and a local replacement was found at the last minute.
Some students had ingeniously constructed a dummy version of the said politician which mechanically 'mouthed' along to a recorded speech before its head began to spin round and round and eventually fly off with impressive sparks and pyrotechnics.
The local Conservative substitute took that in good part and laughed with the rest of us, but was less impressed when he was egged after he'd finished his talk. He responded very calmly and with dignity. 'I see you believe in free speech ...'
A Marxist student immediately condemned the action angrily and the Student Union president apologised, rebuked the perpetrators and declared that the SU would pay for the dry-cleaning of the speaker's suit.
Rightly so in my opinion.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I'm not saying either course of action is acceptable nor diminishing the strong feelings of those who may feel it's acceptable or justified to do so.
But as soon as we step over a 'physically' disruptive line we get into all sorts of dilemmas.
A clinic offering abortion services is rarely only offering abortion services but also other kinds of reproductive healthcare including pregnancy and miscarriage care - whereas military weapons aren't also being used for other things, they are pretty straightforwardly for one thing only.
I am struggling to see the big deal about some eggs, going by your example. Unless the speaker was allergic, he wasn't actually harmed. I personally wouldn't waste something as tasty and expensive as an egg on a standard local Tory councillor or whatever, but equally it's just an egg. Likewise, throwing milkshakes at Nazis is rather less violent than killing them in battle or hanging them at Nuremburg, yet the former seems to attract much more censure.
@Alan Cresswell I remember an egregious incident at university when a particularly - and deservedly unpopular - senior Tory figure was invited to speak. He was unable to attend and a local replacement was found at the last minute.
Some students had ingeniously constructed a dummy version of the said politician which mechanically 'mouthed' along to a recorded speech before its head began to spin round and round and eventually fly off with impressive sparks and pyrotechnics.
The local Conservative substitute took that in good part and laughed with the rest of us, but was less impressed when he was egged after he'd finished his talk. He responded very calmly and with dignity. 'I see you believe in free speech ...'
A Marxist student immediately condemned the action angrily and the Student Union president apologised, rebuked the perpetrators and declared that the SU would pay for the dry-cleaning of the speaker's suit.
Rightly so in my opinion.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I'm not saying either course of action is acceptable nor diminishing the strong feelings of those who may feel it's acceptable or justified to do so.
But as soon as we step over a 'physically' disruptive line we get into all sorts of dilemmas.
A clinic offering abortion services is rarely only offering abortion services but also other kinds of reproductive healthcare including pregnancy and miscarriage care - whereas military weapons aren't also being used for other things, they are pretty straightforwardly for one thing only.
A lot of the aerospace industry, however, is dual use. The Westland Sea King, for example, was primarily a military aircraft, but also widely used for peacetime S&R. It was reckoned that by the time it was retired it had directly saved many more lives than it had taken.
Comments
Statistics are incomplete in the United Kingdom, but while recent immigrants are slightly over represented in the prison population, they are also more likely to be young adult men, quite overwhelmingly over represented in the prison population as a whole.
The best source for this kind of information is Migration Observatory, the name of which would make you think it is an offshoot of Reform but appears pretty sound to me, especially as the Home Office doesn’t publish much information on this topic, which only fans the fires.
BTW, I tend to read Reform - the 'political' party - as Deform, and the odious Lowe's Restore as Destroy...
A plague on both their houses.
Which is a rather romanticised view I'm afraid.
Moseley had a lot of working class support in Stoke on Trent, for instance and also in Birmingham and other large cities. There were of course working class fellas who opposed the Black Shirts but we also have to accept that many didn't and that Moseley did garner working class support - as indeed Reform are doing.
Come and visit me. I can take you to places where that's readily apparent.
Or so family legend runs.
I've no idea whether that comment by Hitler is true or apocryphal, @Stetson. Uniforms appeal to some people and not others and I'm not aware that the British are more or less prone to them than anyone else.
I have a friend whose grandfather was in the Blackshirts. She still has his belt with the insignia on the buckle. It's a chilling piece of kit.
The family are deeply ashamed of him of course, not only was he a fascist but he was an inveterate philanderer. He ran a pub on the South Downs had serial affairs and drilled local men by night until we'll after the War apparently. Although, bizarrely perhaps, he volunteered for ground duties with the RAF during the War because, even though he was fascist in his politics he didn't like the idea of Hitler bombing or invading Britain.
FWIW, George Orwell wrote in England Your England that the English are characterized by, among other qualities, a "reverence for law" and a "hatred for uniforms". Though I have often thought that his commentary on the English character is a little over-egged. "Old maids bicycling to Holy Communion in the morning mist" strikes me as something you coulda seen anywhere with churches offering daily sacraments.
So it's all hunky dory then.
Except they wouldn't necessarily have morning mist.
So there ...
How dare you challenge our national myths, sir.
I shall have to ask you to step outside ...
It could be a Sunday morning or, at a stretch, a midweek communion.
Other than full-on Anglo-Catholic parishes you'd have been hard-pressed to find daily communion anywhere.
Step even further outside.
I think I meant something like "regular Communion". IOW it happens frequently enough that seeing people attend it can be viewed as a culturally typical experience.
And I don't think I was aware John Major had quoted the line. That was part of Back To Basics?
No, the original contention is just nonsense that Atlas Network think tanks are very fond of.
Not even close. No cigar.
It was in the context of the Maastricht Treaty and his attempt to convince fellow Conservatives that we had nothing to fear from continued membership of the EU.
You can see the full text here: https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/1993/04/22/mr-majors-speech-to-conservative-group-for-europe-22-april-1993/
The salient part (if I'm allowed to quote) is as follows:
'Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist” and if we get our way – Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials.
Surely we trust our own integrity as a people quite enough to fear nothing in Europe. We are the British, a people freely living inside a Europe which is glad to see us and wants us. After 20 years we have come of age in Europe. One Conservative leader put us there. This Conservative leader means us to thrive there. So let’s get on with it.'
Some 33 years on, my eyes mist up, but for different reasons than Major intended.
'The clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns... old maids biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings, these are not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene.'
The clatter of clogs had long gone - as had the mills - by 1993 but the misty autumn mornings were still there, even if there were less old maids biking through them to Holy Communion.
So, put the quote in context. Both Orwell's vision and Major's were highly idealised of course but intended to be more culturally indicative than you are allowing them to be. As I've said, you might get regular communion in plenty of places around the globe but there is something distinctive about a misty autumn morning here. Not that we have a monopoly on mist nor on autumn of course.
There could be other cultural indicators they might have chosen of course. I understand that the Spanish see 'hypocrisy' as the besetting British sin, and 'jealousy' as their own.
But nobody's going to put that in a wistful speech.
Given what's going on in UK politics at the moment even Major looks like a throw-back to a gentler and more civil age.
My first point is that there is a descending scale from rebellion through sedition, riot, criminal damage and social disruption. All the same, as far as I am concerned any 'peaceful protest' that is legitimate is about demonstrating with a view to persuading other people, including the state, to agree with you. None of those, not even the last, are within that description of 'peaceful protest'. Even at the lowest level of these categories, why should bystanders be unable to get to hospital appointments or work because a fringe clique of environmentalist think it should be within their rights to block a motorway.
Where there is a breach of the peace, it is legitimate for the state to take whatever enforcement action may be appropriate to protect ordinary citizens and their property, to restore peace and to enable ordinary citizens to go about their day to day business without let or hindrance.
I have listed these on a descending scale of outrage. There may be grounds for discussion whether the state may in some cases have over-reacted, or whether the penalties in light of the particular level of disorder or other circumstances of the case may be disproportionate. Nevertheless engaging in sedition, riot, criminal damage or social disruption are not things a person can do unintentionally. People choose to do them because they think it will get their point across. By choosing to take part, one cannot then complain that it is unfair if one gets arrested, prosecuted or banged up.
My position, and this is the point where I suspect I will really be parting company with @Arethosemyfeet @chrisstiles and many other shipmates, is that it is largely irrelevant what the cause is for which people are putting their liberty, pockets or future job prospects at risk. The cause in which yobs have rioted in the last week in Southampton, Belfast, Glasgow is one utterly indefensible and without merit. So are the public figures here and abroad who have expressly or implicitly encouraged them to do so.
What I do not see, though, is how if most people agree that it is illegitimate to do do these things for a bad cause, it can somehow be all right to do them for a cause I agree with. That is 'our-boysism' - a term originally used of the two sides in Northern Ireland. There far too many law abiding citizens appeared to take the line that 'I accept some of our boys go a bit far but it is understandable because our cause is just and our lot have been provoked and have had to put up with a lot. Those, however, who perpetrate murder and outrages for the other side are nothing but wicked, unconscionable and bloodthirsty terrorists'.
The problem is that the bar of causing inconveience or disruption to others takes in industrial action and large scale demonstrations. It would be an utterly bonkers situation where you could get roads closed for events deemed "cultural" (like Orange marches) but as soon as there is an element of trying to change government policy or public opinion it becomes an outrage that legitimises the police going in mob-handed and forcing people to disperse.
And yes, it does make a difference what the "cause" is. The actions that are reasonable and legitimate to disrupt an ongoing genocide are broader in scope than those appropriate because you want the TV licence abolished. How is this even controversial?
Oh, and while you're trying the "both sides" thing, smashing up drones used to murder people is in no way equivalent to burning innocent civilians out of their homes.
I'm interested in this idea that 'the state' is a completely separate entity that is apart from the democratic sphere.
I'm also interested in your idea of 'peaceful protest' - can you tell me one bit of social change that has occurred via the kind of 'peaceful protest' you endorse?
But, as @chrisstiles says, no social change has ever happened without someone creating some form of disturbance. It may be nice to think that a well formulated argument will convince everyone that you are right, but in practice that never seems to happen. It seems we always need to get out onto the streets and march, to chant our slogans and disrupt the peace and quiet of the normal life of people around about. We need to boycott goods, disrupting trade. We may need to campaign for peace by lying across the gates of military bases. Unions have usually found it necessary to strike, disrupting business and having a picket line. And, at times more direct action is necessary when we're convinced we're right and the government doesn't seem to be listening - there are plenty of examples of long term camps in places to keep things at public attention, or protestors gaining access to high profile events to make their case, even criminal damage. Of course, when protestors cross the line of breaking the law - trespass, breaking and entry or damage to property then we should be ready to face the legal consequences of that, and many such protestors have had their time in court and served time, which of course gives them a chance to explain why they did what they did to the jury (and, watching media) and maintain yet more attention to their cause.
Was it fear of violent revolution that brought about concessions and constitutional change?
Was it both/and?
Or something else?
Generally speaking those in positions of power or in autocratic regimes haven't tended to give way willingly to pressure, whether peaceful or otherwise.
But does that justify attacking people, be it police officers, security guards, politicians, people who disagree with us?
If you are a police officer hit by a brick thrown by a racist mob hell-bent on burning people out of their homes you are just as much injured as the one hit by a sledgehammer by Palestinian Action. The officer is still injured whatever our views on the rightness or otherwise of the cause.
Somehow there has to be a way between 'both sides-ism' on the one hand and 'our boys-ism' on the other.
Do I have sympathy for the rioters in Brixton and across the country in 1981. Yes. Do I sympathise with the rioters in Belfast, Glasgow and Southampton? No.
I make a choice as to where my sympathies lie.
Does that mean I don't care about the police officers, fire service personnel and others injured in those disturbances? No. Does it mean I condone the hacking to death of a police officer during the riots on the Broadwater Farm estate in 1985? Most certainly not.
Does deploring the fact that a police officer and security guards were injured by Palestinian Action protestors mean that I condone Israeli actions in Gaza and the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent people? No.
Does deploring the actions of Netanyahu and hard-line Israeli settlers on the West Bank mean I condone Hamas's terrorism and that of Hezbollah? No.
Does deploring the actions of Trump in bombing Iran mean I support that country's theocratic regime? No.
Somehow we have to get away from binary and polarised positions though. Easier said than done.
Lord Shaftesbury as true-blue a Tory as you could get, introduced legislation to reduce working hours, perhaps one of the most far-reaching and beneficial pieces of legislation to pass through Parliament. Ok, he did so because he thought it would encourage working class people to attend church and become well-behaved and morally upright evangelical Protestants. But he did it, even though he wasn't at all 'progressive' in his views - if we can apply that term anachronistically.
Does that mean that there wasn't a case for early trades unionism and lobbying/agitation by working people? No, of course it doesn't.
Opposition to Hitler was actually BUF policy - Mosley wanted an independent fascist Britain and opposed the idea of a German invasion.
There probably are actions short of that I would have difficulty supporting - eg: blocking access for emergency services (at one protest recently with a march on a local defence firm supplying IDF, no one there objected to the instructions from the organisers to stay on the pavement outside the factory gates and keep the road, which is a primary route for ambulances into the local A&E, clear - indeed I think many protestors would go home if the organisers said we should block that road - even though that made hearing the speeches from the front that much harder). I'd also think twice about damage to public property and private property unrelated to the focus of the protest, especially damage that will take time or a significant amount of money to repair (drawing something in chalk or tying placards on lamp posts are, technically, damage to property but are not as serious as paint or broken windows). But a protest against arm sales that includes damage to the offices of the arms firm or some of the product they're selling ... well, that's a decision for protestors about whether they're willing to be arrested and tried for that.
It's also clear that Hitler didn't want to invade Britain or France, he just wanted them to not interfere in his actions in what he considered to be part of "greater Germany" occupied by peoples he considered "subhuman". His evil racist views considered British and French to be part of the "superior" western European peoples, and that it was right that they had their own nations and empires colonising and ruling the "inferior" people of Africa and Asia. He considered the Slavic eastern European peoples to be "inferior" and that those nations were fair game for his ambitions for a new German empire. The invasion of France and plans to invade Britain were not part of his original plan, but a necessary reaction to the declarations of war following his invasion of Poland, his preference would seem to be that Britain and France simply never declared war and let him expand the Third Reich into eastern Europe.
Some students had ingeniously constructed a dummy version of the said politician which mechanically 'mouthed' along to a recorded speech before its head began to spin round and round and eventually fly off with impressive sparks and pyrotechnics.
The local Conservative substitute took that in good part and laughed with the rest of us, but was less impressed when he was egged after he'd finished his talk. He responded very calmly and with dignity. 'I see you believe in free speech ...'
A Marxist student immediately condemned the action angrily and the Student Union president apologised, rebuked the perpetrators and declared that the SU would pay for the dry-cleaning of the speaker's suit.
Rightly so in my opinion.
The justification of disruptive or violent actions can lead us into very sticky territory. To take a hypothetical and Epiphanous example, if it's OK for anti-war or anti-IDF protestors to cause criminal damage to the plant and property of manufacturers, would it be OK for anti-abortion protestors, say, to damage clinics?
I'm not saying either course of action is acceptable nor diminishing the strong feelings of those who may feel it's acceptable or justified to do so.
But as soon as we step over a 'physically' disruptive line we get into all sorts of dilemmas.
I think criminal damage as part of protest is effectively a challenge to the jury to say "is what we've done worse than what we're aiming to prevent?" I think that criminal damage should be prosecuted on an equal basis regardless of "cause" but the jury should be allowed to hear all the context and arguments, and be informed if the judge intends to sentence the offence as terrorism, not have a judge acting on behalf of the security state to shut down anything that might make a jury think twice.
Of course, it also follows that in a democracy like the UK they should receive a fair trial - that includes being able to put forward a defence for their actions on the basis of justification, and for the trial to be entirely transparent about the charges they will face. I'd also add that significant delays in bringing people to trial, especially if the accused are held in remand, is also a big problem.
I struggle to understand how the definition of "terrorism" has expanded in recent years to cover far more than what most people would think of as terrorism.
Which is, of course, why a lot of people were suspicious of post-9/11 terrorism legislation.
A good point, and it’s worth noting that a lot of legislation has been in response to lawbreaking, including violent acts. It’s usually panicky government ministers the media that describe acts as terrorism.
A clinic offering abortion services is rarely only offering abortion services but also other kinds of reproductive healthcare including pregnancy and miscarriage care - whereas military weapons aren't also being used for other things, they are pretty straightforwardly for one thing only.
I am struggling to see the big deal about some eggs, going by your example. Unless the speaker was allergic, he wasn't actually harmed. I personally wouldn't waste something as tasty and expensive as an egg on a standard local Tory councillor or whatever, but equally it's just an egg. Likewise, throwing milkshakes at Nazis is rather less violent than killing them in battle or hanging them at Nuremburg, yet the former seems to attract much more censure.
A lot of the aerospace industry, however, is dual use. The Westland Sea King, for example, was primarily a military aircraft, but also widely used for peacetime S&R. It was reckoned that by the time it was retired it had directly saved many more lives than it had taken.