GRIMLY FIENDISH

No, the BANKS would be footing the bill, which they've been allowed to dodge for far too long.. The City is one of the biggest Tax Havens in the world and accountable to absolutely no one.. People go on about the EU being unnaccountable, well, who the fukk voted for the Banksters or the totally undemocratic Corporation of London..? <_<

EU veto: Cameron says he negotiated in 'good faith http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16134496 David Cameron has said he "genuinely looked to reach an agreement" at the EU summit but vetoed treaty change because it was not in the national interest. Mr Cameron told MPs he negotiated in "good faith" and his demands were "modest, reasonable and relevant". The prime minister said he used the veto as he did not secure "sufficient safeguards" on financial regulation. There is no sign of his pro-European Deputy PM Nick Clegg, who usually sits alongside the PM in the Commons. Labour leader Ed Miliband questioned why Mr Clegg was not in the Commons, saying the PM could "not even persuade" his deputy of the merits of his actions. BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said he had been told Mr Clegg - who said on Sunday the result "was bad for Britain" - had decided that his presence in the Chamber would be a distraction. The statement began with Labour MPs shouting "where's Clegg" - and later during the statement Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries accused the Lib Dem leader of "cowardice". Giving an account of the decisions he took in Brussels, Mr Cameron insisted he had agreed his negotiating stance with his Lib Dem partners before the summit and the two parties had to "put aside differences" to work in the national interest. During rowdy exchanges, Commons Speaker John Bercow has had to intervene on several occasions to restore order. Explaining his decision to veto the treaty, Mr Cameron said it was "not an easy thing to do but it was the right thing to do". He said he was faced with the "choice of a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty at all". He dismissed claims that he had demanded "an opt-out" for the City from EU directives on finance, seeking only proper regulations and a "level playing field" for British business in Europe. "I went to Brussels with one objective - to protect Britain's national interest. And that is what I did." He argued: "I do not believe there is a binary choice for Britain that we can either sacrifice the national interest on issue after issue or lose our influence at the heart of Europe's negotiating process. "I am absolutely clear that it is possible to be a both a full, committed and influential member of the EU but to stay out of arrangements where they do not protect our interests." 'Bad deal' But Ed Miliband said the prime minister had gained nothing from the negotiations and had "given up his seat at the table". "He has come back with a bad deal for Britain," he told MPs. "Far from protecting our interests, he has left us without a voice." Suggesting the outcome was a "diplomatic disaster" for the UK, Mr Miliband said the prime minister "did not want a deal as he could not deliver it through his party". Mr Cameron's efforts were applauded by a succession of eurosceptic Conservative MPs, one - John Redwood - saying he had shown "excellent statesmanship". "Britain today has much more negotiating strength because they know they are dealing with a prime minister who will say no if he needs to," he said. But former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "vital" for the UK to remain an engaged member of the EU, while his colleague Martin Horwood said international investors needed reassuring that the UK remained "at the heart" of European decision-making. Mr Cameron blocked changes to the EU's Lisbon Treaty, which were aimed at addressing the euro crisis, at a summit on Friday. Senior Conservative figures have insisted the veto was in part to protect the City of London from excessive intervention by Europe, but Labour and the UK Independence Party have both argued that actually no additional safeguards were achieved. The treaty changes needed the support of all 27 EU members, including those not in the euro, such as the UK, to go ahead. It now looks likely that all 26 other members of the European Union will agree to a new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules aimed at preventing a repeat of the current eurozone crisis. The new accord will hold eurozone members to strict budgetary rules including: * a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries' annual structural deficits * "automatic consequences" for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP * a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised French President Nicholas Sarkozy has suggested he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel "did everything" to let the UK agree to the treaty but Friday's outcome signalled "there are now clearly two Europes". However the deal still has to be agreed by a number of national parliaments, and the reaction of the financial markets suggests it has failed to bring a swift end to the euro crisis. The BBC's Rob Cameron in Prague said: "Commentators here have taken a more cautious - and arguably more accurate - view, reflecting the fact that the Czechs haven't signed up to anything yet." The current French presidential front-runner, Socialist Francois Hollande, said on Monday that if he was elected next May he would renegotiate the accord, saying: "This accord is not the right answer." One of Chancellor Merkel's close aides in the German parliament told the BBC's Stephen Evans he does not see why "Britain should stay isolated". CDU Chief Whip Peter Altmaier said: "Over the last years there has been very intensive cooperation between the UK and Germany and I'm deeply convinced that this will continue. It will last. We have so much in common and there are so few issues that divide us." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would say that this decision is far less in the "national" interests, and far more in the Banksters' and The City's interests..... -_-

Oh, of course, silly me... And similarly, Police brutality and oppression of peaceful protesters doesn't happen in the US either..... :lol: :lol:

Or Florida in 2000....

That would be a shocking winner, more like... Unless we had a category for "Biggest Pile O' Shite".... :lol: :lol:

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook last night. I felt the need to disseminate it, because I think that some myths need to be dispelled.... Whilst blasting through the streets tomorrow & shouting to deaf ears, here is at least a list of myths to be killed off: Myth 1: ‘the pension adjustment is needed due to our aging population’ = these pensions were adjusted 3 years back to take into account the aging problem. At which point both parties were satisfied with the deal & the government promised the pensions wouldn’t be further adjusted for a generation (60 years, if I recall correct). Not only have they simply & casually broken this promise, but the treasury has even openly admitted that they need this money for the deficit. Myth 2: ‘there isn’t enough money to pay these pensions out’ = the LGPS is currently among the largest in the world & not only deemed in full health but is in fact even in excess. In short: even if contributions stopped today, it could keep paying out for the next 20 years. Some of the side pensions are experiencing a deficit currently, but they argue this is normal in the ups & downs of the life span of pensions - & that long term they are fully viable as they are. Myth 3: ‘I don’t want my tax money to pay for others pensions’ = hello? everyone pays for everyone else's pensions! Every earning person (private & council) pays tax/NI contributions that goes towards the State Pension fund. So as much as a fragment of your earnings may go to local council pensions, every council worker are working & paying towards your pension too ~ ok? I might pay for schooling albeit not having a child of my own. Or pay for healthcare, albeit remaining healthy for life. This is what we have been doing for decades already without a problem & if you want to take away your tax contribution towards my pension (indirectly as it may be) then I'd like to take back my tax contribution towards the State Pension you will need later in life. Does that make you feel better? Myth 4: ‘Council workers are spoiled’ = most council workers I know are genuinely shocked & appalled so many people have lost their private pensions. Many of them are married to partners working in the private sector. This fight is NOT us saying ‘we deserve it & you didn’t’. Quite the contrary – unless we can fight & keep our pensions, & this country can be redirected back, we'll *all* loose even more rights. This strike is not only about the pensions; it’s about all the changes the government have imposed on us. And further changes WILL keep rolling in, unless We seriously do our best to halt this progress now. I have signed more petitions than I can count & have demonstrated twice already – if you find me spoiled, where were you? Reality 1: if council workers do end up paying for the deficit from their pensions we are in fact ending up paying twice compared to others. Not only would we pay through our taxes, we would also pay through our pensions. This whilst having had years of pay freeze, a constantly increasing work load & face regular redundancies. We have been black painted by the government for doing jobs which they themselves have hired us to do - & which we do in service for this country to the best of our ability. We don’t live luxury lives, we live normal lives. We nurse you, your children, your benefits, your support services. Sometimes we fail you, because the regulations are set by others than us; the work is coming in too fast & being poorly distributed; the mighty above us move us around with no real regard for the reality on the ground. Often we take abuse from people who believe we are in a position to make their life better, when we are not – we are merely middle hands/workers. But we try to do a good decent job. And to help. Reality 2: if council workers’ pensions fund are ‘bled’ now to make up the deficit, with no signs of this government intending to get our money back from the banks or unpaid tax from the corporations, it is effectively a new pouring of money into a bottomless Black Hole... It will vanish without ever getting compensated. That means, when we reach 65 we’ll all be in the same boat: needing State Pension. So to wish to see us deprived of our pensions today is in effect to say to yourself that you want us all in the same pool as you, fighting for a state pension in 25-30 years time. Does that really make you feel more secure in gaining your state pension?? To keep this pool of money protected is in your interest – it’s not for the itchy fingers of the Government to gamble with; it’s peoples' own set aside savings. Our joint future as we will all face retirement in a few decades. Correct....

Are you deliberately just being fukkin' dense Chris, or did you just not bother to read my post... Did I not just state that I'm not a member of the union, but I'm lending my support anyway....? Did you even bother to go out on the disabled cuts demo earlier this year...? I bet you didn't.... -_- You dont have to be a member of the union to join the strike... Just a concerned and un-apathetic citizen....

So, we should just declare ALL elections null and void if less than 50% vote...? Right, well, that means we'd have to recall all our MEPs, probably get rid of most of the Councillors in the country as well.... Prat.... :rolleyes: The "minister" can f'uck off, David Sca-Moron didn't get voted on anything LIKE a majority either... People living in glass houses, and all that...... And I tell you something else, this has become about a hell of a lot more than just public sector pensions.. George Osborne's "autumn statement" is a declaration of war on all of us who hold our public services in some kind of value.. Yeah, this IS ideological, you better believe it... It's Class Struggle, and I think we should stop being so fukkin' apathetic and lame, and actually realise that they're out to get a lot more than just the public sector pensions here... What the hell do you think is gonna happen to public services when almost three quarters of a million people are laid off... They will be totally FUBAR-ed.... These scum-bags said there would be no cuts to frontline services, and people were actually idiot enough to believe them...... This is about the Pensioners, it's about the workers, it's about the NHS, it's about the students, it's about the teachers, the doctors, the nurses, the police, the armed forces, the disabled, etc, etc..... I'm not even a member of any of these unions, but I'm savvy enough to see that this shite wont end with public sector workers' pensions.... Actually stand up for something for once in your miserable fukkin' life Chris.... Or maybe you actually want to have your benefits taken away..... -_-

Good article..... :)

Just a slight re-arranging of "we're all in this together"... And that was a load of bollocks too The Tories and the Right Wing press have done their damnedest to paint this day of action and the unions in as negative a light as possible, but the fact of the matter is the Tories lied through their teeth about the supposed "negotiations" anyway, as Danny the Ginger Rodent had already actually announced what the policy was going to be REGARDLESS of what actual negotiations are going on.. How on earth can you negotiate on those sorts of terms..? Nothing had been agreed, and there's Alexander making announcements in the press... Another fact the right wing press seems to blithely ignore is that pensions had already been re-negotiated in 2007, and people had agreed to make larger contributions already, and yet another fact is that these particular increases to contributions wont actually be going into pension funds.. They'll more than likely be used to fund tax breaks for millionaires who currently pay the 50% rate... So, sorry, but F/UCK YOU TORY SCUM..... And Osborne's "Autumn Statement" is another kick in the teeth for public sector workers.... George Osborne: Public sector pay rises capped at 1% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086 Chancellor George Osborne has announced public sector pay rises are to be capped at 1% for two years, in his update on the state of the economy. The number of public sector jobs set to be lost by 2017 has also been revised up from 400,000 to 710,000. He said economic growth will be lower, and borrowing and unemployment higher, than forecast in his Budget in March. For Labour, Ed Balls said the figures showed the chancellor's economic and fiscal plans were "in tatters". Outlining his plans to MPs, based on economic forecasts from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), Mr Osborne told MPs the UK economy was now forecast to grow by 0.9% this year - compared with 1.7% forecast in March and 0.7% next year, down from the 2.5% forecast in March. He said the forecast from the OBR were down to the eurozone crisis, a hike in global commodity prices and a new assessment that the UK's economic boom was bigger and the bust deeper than previously believed. Borrowing was falling and debt would come down but "not as quickly as we wished". In 2011-12 it is now forecast at £127bn - up from £122bn forecast in the Budget and overall, over five years, is expecting to borrow £111bn more But he said, because debt interest payments had dropped, the government would be spending £22bn less over this Parliament on them than predicted. The OBR forecast that unemployment would rise from 8.1% this year, to 8.7% next year - before falling to 6.2% by 2016. Its earlier prediction that a squeeze on the public sector would mean 400,000 job losses over five years has been nearly doubled, to 710,000 - due to extra spending cuts pencilled in after 2015. The chancellor conceded he would not now be able to eliminate the structural deficit and see national debt falling by 2014/15 as predicted. The structural deficit is now predicted to be eliminated by 2015-16, pushing it beyond the next general election. While the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had not forecast a double dip recession - as the economic think tank the OECD did on Monday - the chancellor warned that if the rest of Europe went into recession, "it may prove hard to avoid one here". But he said the government would meet its budget rules and would "see Britain through this debt storm". State pension age Among money-saving measures outlined by the chancellor were a 1% cap on public sector pay for two years, once the current two-year pay freeze ends from 2013 - saying the government "cannot afford the 2% rise assumed by some government departments thereafter". That would save more than £1bn by 2014-15, he said. Plans to raise the state pension age from 66 to 67 would be brought forward by up to ten years to 2026, to save £59bn in the long term. The child element of the working tax credit will be uprated in line with inflation, but other tax credit increases will be restricted. But in April there will be a £5.30 increase in the basic state pension to £107.45, in line with the 5.2% inflation rise in September. Pensioners receiving pension credit will also benefit from an increase worth £5.35 and "working age" benefits would also go up in line with the higher inflation figure - contrary to earlier reports - which he said would be a "significant boost to the incomes of the poorest". Other announcements included an increase in the bank levy to 0.088% from 1 January and a 50% discount for social housing tenants who want to buy their own home - the proceeds of which would go towards building new affordable homes. Mr Osborne also went through a series of schemes aimed at boosting the UK's flagging economy. These include a £20bn national loan guarantee scheme for small businesses, a £40bn "credit easing" scheme to underwrite bank loans to small businesses, plans for £5bn spending on big infrastructure projects over three years - with 35 road and rail schemes identified, £400m fund to kick start housing projects, a £1bn regional growth fund for England, £250m help for energy intensive industries to alleviate cost of EU carbon trading, reduced corporate tax rate and an extended business rate holiday for small businesses and an extra £1.2bn for schools. Rail fares, and fares for the Tube and London buses, will be capped at inflation plus 1% while the fuel duty rise for January has been axed and a planned 5p rise in August limited to 3p. Free nursery care targeted at two-year-olds from poorer families will be extended to 260,000 toddlers and Mr Osborne confirmed a £940m scheme to target youth unemployment by subsidising work placements in the private sector. Ed Balls said the chancellor's economic and fiscal strategy ''is in tatters'' Overseas aid will be adjusted as it is currently on track to surpass the government's commitment to raise it to 0.7% of GDP, which Mr Osborne said could not be justified in the current circumstances. But for Labour, shadow chancellor Ed Balls said the figures showed the "truly colossal failure of the chancellor's plan". "Let's be clear what the OBR has told us today: Growth flatlining, down this year, next year and the year after. Unemployment rising, well over £100bn more borrowing than the chancellor planned a year ago - more borrowing that the plan which the chancellor inherited at the last general election. "As a result his economic and fiscal strategy is in tatters." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, public sector wage "increases" capped at 1%... Taken in tandem with the 3% rise in "pensions contributions", that is basically an effective pay CUT of 2%, and this is without adding in the effects of VAT rises.... In real terms, Public Sector workers are getting absolutely f/ucking SHAFTED.... And, tell me again, who was it that caused the financial crisis....?? <_< <_< <_<

I was thinking more "what's the difference between Saudi Arabia and Syria, tbh...". Bear in mind that the crown prince of Bahrain actually had an invite for the bloody Royal Wedding before media pressure forced a climb-down..... <_<

Indeed... Proves the point that I've made all along, workers need to be unionised and organised....

BNP = British Numpty Party.... What a set of utter tools..... But then, this is the sort of stupidity that the likes of Nadine Dorries inspires in the more idiotic sheep out there.... -_-

Really..? You've certainly done nothing to prove your supposed intelligence on this forum, dunno about elsewhere... Craig was a racist and a bit of creepy git with some of the female members of the forum, and finally went one breach of the site rules too far, but at least he managed a coherent, cogent argument most of the time on this forum. So far, I've heard nothing from you that actually comes close to having a proper argument... And, not only that, you often completely contradict yourself...

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy by Naomi Wolf http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...P=FBCNETTXT9038 US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park. But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk." In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests. To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping. I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels. Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response. That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted. The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening. The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks. No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors. When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them. For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time). In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens. But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail. Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance. So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not. Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fascism and greed. What a lovely combination.... <_<

-ZDWqpLluQE http://observers.france24.com/content/2011...terior-ministry Amateur footage shows a tank deliberately trying to hit protesters in the eastern Saudi Arabian city of Qatif on Wednesday. Our Observer told us that this kind of violence is unprecedented in Saudi Arabia. Similar incidents have, however, recently taken place in Bahrain and Egypt. The demonstrators had gathered in the city centre for the funerals of two people killed during rallies last week. Security forces cracked down on protesters once again; two people were killed and nine injured. In a statement, the Interior Ministry said “these losses took place during an exchange of gunfire with unidentified criminals who infiltrated the population and opened fire from residential areas.” According to the Interior Ministry, two of the injured were policemen. Since March, residents of Qatif, which is a majority Shiite city, have held frequent anti-government demonstrations. Shiites represent just 10 percent of the total population, and are considered to be heretics by the country’s Sunni leaders. They are marginalised at every level: religious, political and social. "I have been in Qatif since the start of the demonstrations and have taken part in most of them. What I can say is it’s unusual for security forces to use such violence as they did on Wednesday. As people left the cemetery after the two protesters’ funeral, a group of people started shouting anti-government slogans. Very quickly, the police moved in, as you can see in the images. According to my sources, the two people who died were shot at by snipers stationed in the big water tower that can be seen in the background of the video. Then a tank arrived and began to try to mow people down. Most people ran out of the way, but in the last three seconds, you can see the tank hit a man. [Editor’s Note: It is not clear from the video whether the tank actually hit a person or an object]. Authorities said the two people that died on Wednesday were killed in an exchange of fire between criminals, but I don’t believe that. I know people who went to protest – they are young, mostly between 20 and 30 years old. They are unemployed and feel marginalized by the authorities. I tried to find out who the leader of the movement was, but there is none. Since the beginning of the unrest, I haven’t seen any armed protesters." All people are asking for is that their rights be respected. Since the start of the unrest in March, protesters have demanded that political prisoners be freed. They have been imprisoned without trial and for no reason, some for as long as 15 years. Since the start of the protests, checkpoints have been set up throughout the city. There are tanks, jeeps and soldiers with automatic guns. Residents do not understand why their movements are being limited in this way. The police are arresting a lot of young people, in particular. Young people spend hours at police checkpoints before they can enter or leave the city. Of course, this only fires up the youth even more.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That sound you hear is the deafening silence of the mainstream Western Media....... -_-

Exactly.. Look at David Cameron. Supposedly had the best education daddy's money could buy.. And yet, cant even get the dates right of when America entered WW2.... :lol: :lol:

You're not the average 18-20 year old though.... And, obviously, even a braindead chimp probably knows more than CC.... :lol:

Chris is a typical example of the mindless tabloid-reading sheeple out there. They're not interested in the actual issues, or the actual consequences of policy, they just listen to the spin of a bunch of suits and actually believe the bullshit... An 18-20 year old voting for the first time has an excuse, they dont know any better..

He'd've been shot at South Bank Uni.... :lol: :lol:

Students begin wave of occupations to back public sector strikes http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/n...P=FBCNETTXT9038 Students are planning a wave of campus occupations and protests in the run-up to nationwide strikes next week, the Guardian has learned. Occupations called by the student group National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) ahead of the trade union day of action on 30 November have already happened at Birmingham and Cambridge universities. Higher education minister David Willetts had to abandon a speech on the Idea of University on Tuesday night after students heckled him from the stage and began occupying Cambridge's largest lecture hall. The occupations, in opposition to the government's white paper on education reform, which would formalise the £9,000 rise in tuition fees, are expected to break out across the country. NCAFC said that occupied lecture halls and buildings would act as bases for students to plan further action backing strikes by about 3 million public sector workers – expected to be the biggest day of industrial action since the winter of discontent in 1979. The group's co-founder, Michael Chessum, said: "It's all terribly unpredictable. We may well see actions and occupations popping up all other the country today and in the coming week." In front of an audience of more than a hundred, Willetts was forced to sit in a corner of the stage of Lady Mitchell Hall, as students read out a prepared statement. Student James Jackson said activists from Cambridge Defend Education read out a prepared statement which was repeated sentence by sentence by other demonstrators in the audience – a technique used by Occupy activists. Making reference to recent student protests in which the Metropolitan police said baton rounds could be used to prevent disorder, the statement said: "You can threaten to shoot us with rubber bullets; you can arrest us; you can imprison us; you can criminalise our dissent; you can blight a hundred thousand lives … but you cannot break us because we are more resolute, more numerous, and more determined than you … Go home, David." After sitting on the stage, they eventually forced the minister's departure. "At first Willetts seemed to want to carry on," Jackson said. "After the second minute he sat in a corner then [the organisers] closed the blinds on him, still waiting for us to stop and leave. When we didn't, I think he decided it was time for him to go and so he just left." Jackson, 21, who is reading art history, said that after Willetts' departure the group occupied the hall and were now receiving support from academics who were bringing them food and supplies. Silkie Carlo, 22, studying psychology, who was also part of the action said : "Cambridge is serious about defending education. Particularly from an institution that is seen as upper middle class, the most privileged students, it's important that we understand that the rise in fees affect us and the progress of the university. We don't want to study in that kind of place." In the early hours of Wedenesday, Birmingham students occupied an abandoned gatehouse on the northern edge of their campus, where they plan to hold a series of lectures. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HA, HA, HA..... David Willetts - two brains, no sense.... -_-

Agreed 100%

“GO HOME, DAVID”: An epistle to David Willetts http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/go-home-d...-david-willetts This text was collectively performed using a “people’s mic” in Lady Mitchell Hall, in place of the planned talk by David Willetts. Willetts was bundled off stage and students continue to occupy the space where he was meant to speak. Dear David Willetts/ The future does not belong to you./ This is an epistle/ which is addressed to you./ But it is written/ for those who will come after us./ Why?/ Because we do not respect your right/ to occupy the platform this evening./ Your name/ is anathema to us./ You are not a welcome guest/ because you come with a knife/ concealed beneath your cloak./ Behind your toothy smiles,/ we have already seen/ the fixed gaze of the hired assassin./ You have transgressed/ against all codes of hospitality./ That is why/ we interrupt your performance tonight./ Because nothing is up for debate here./ Your mind is made up./ You are not for turning./ All your questioners have been planted./ So we, too, have planted ourselves/ in your audience./ We stole in quietly,/ without much fanfare/– because we know your tactics./ But now that we are here,/ we will not wait to be told/ before we speak./ You have professed your commitment/ to the religion of choice/ but you leave us with no choice./ You are a man/ who believes in the market/ and in the power of competition/ to drive up quality./ But look to the world around you:/ your gods have failed./ They were capricious gods/ and we do not mourn them,/ nor do we seek new ones. Fools that we are,/ we took you at your word:/ so we are clambering into the driving seat/ because your steering is uncomfortable to us/ and your destination/ is not one of our choosing. Even the very metaphor betrays you./ So let us begin/ by activating the emergency brake:/ the University is no motor vehicle,/ to be souped up,/ ideologically re-tuned,/ intellectually re-fitted,/ cosmetically re-sprayed,/ and then sent out onto the highway,/ like some gaudy engine of the ‘knowledge economy’,/ emitting noxious filth/ and polluting the air./ The road itself is narrow;/ your eyes are fixed on a vanishing horizon/ which you will never quite reach./ You have picked a route/ which skirts carefully around/ all redoubts of human warmth and solidarity./ Look elsewhere for your metaphors, David./ We have no desire/ to be put into the driving seat./ There are chairs enough in our libraries –/ would that there were more libraries –/ and these are the only seats of learning/ that we would wish to know./ We will not used/ by you./ We do not wish to ‘rate’ our teachers;/ we wish to learn from them./ We are not consumers./ We are students –/ and we will stand with our teachers/ on their picket lines. Your soulless vision of efficiency;/ your mechanistic frameworks of ‘excellence’;/ your chummy invitation/ to hop on board/ and serve the needs of the Economy:/ all of this makes it clear to us/ that you have set out from a false premise,/ because guess what, David:/ you cannot quantify knowledge./ Your craven desperation to do so/ tells us only one thing:/ you are trying to discipline us,/ but we will not be disciplined,/ because we are schooled/ in a different kind of pedagogy./ You cannot steal our honey, David./ It will go sour for you./You can process all the information/ that you wish/ but your project is doomed to fail./ We thought we should let you know –/ out of kindness, mainly./ If you want to make us/ the processors of the information/ that is useful to you;/ if you want to smother/ the capacity for critical thought:/ so be it./ We understand that you do not like/ to be told that you are wrong./ So we understand/ that you do not want us to think/ too rigorously, or critically./ So go on:/ lobotomise us./ Tell us that we are beyond the pale./ Make us over/ into the drones and ciphers/ of your economy./ Your world will be the poorer./ We will continue to nourish our traditions/ in the crevices and dark corners/ that you forget/ and that you cannot touch./ It is almost inappropriate/ to lay out to you/ the terms of your own wrongness./ But has it not occurred to you/ that the ‘vocation’ of scholarship/ far from leading to a profession/ may in fact preclude it?/ Or is it that you more of a capital calf/ than you are letting on? / Is it that the Brave New World/ you are trying to inaugurate/ will, in fact, preclude scholarship?/ We have tasted companionship/ in a way that you cannot know./ We have a singleness of heart./ And, unlike you,/ we none of us believe/ that any of our possessions are our own./ You will not find us/ in any of your statistical surveys;/ our ‘student experience’ cannot be measured/ by your instruments./ Woe to every scorner and mocker/ who collects wealth/ and counts it./ We are both measurably younger/ and immeasurably older/ than you./ You have already lost./ You have lost the initiative./ You have lost the debate./ You have lost your sense of decorum./ We are closer than you think./ So it does not surprise us/ that you are worried./ You can try to intimidate us;/ you can threaten to shoot us/ with rubber bullets;/ you can arrest us;/ you can imprison us;/ you can criminalise our dissent;/ you can blight a hundred thousand lives,/ slowly, and one-by-one,/ but you cannot break us/ because we are more resolute,/ more numerous,/ and more determined than you./ And we are closer than you think./ So it does not surprise us/ that you are scared./ It is not that you lack our confidence –/ you never had it –/ the nub of the issue is this:/ you do not have confidence in yourself./Go home, David./ And learn your gods anew. Beautiful... This brings a tear of joy to the eye of an Old Marxist... The young are doing us proud... :wub:

Read the two articles I posted on the previous page.... The likes of Francis Maude, Danny "ginger rodent" Alexander and Eric "fatty" Pickles are being paid veritable Kings' ransoms in terms of pensions.... Hypocritical scumbags indeed... -_-

Mind you, Cameron's suggestion is pretty hilarious tbh.. Wouldn't employers actually be legally liable for these kids while on the business premises....? :rolleyes: