bolitics Free range Lentil, anyone? - The green party

[Xann]

Thorium is simply much safer. I'd have a thorium reactor in my house. I don't want uranium anywhere near people. And there is no (obvious) way to weaponise it.

 

The by products of the thorium fuel cycle are at the nasty end of the periodic table.

 

Sure you wouldn't mind the reactor in your house - but you'd want the waste removed, and though the decay time is a fraction of older technologies, it's still less than ideal.

[peterms]

 

...the act is the expression of views, rather than the private holding of views.  Banning organisations crosses that line, and I find it very problematic.

It can be but isn't always an expression of views. Various organisations have the aim of using force and violence to achieve their objective. Membership of such is more than expressing a view, or hold opinions. It's supporting and being (potentially in the future, or actually now) involved in violence. Prevention of that involvement is seen by most reasonable people as a good thing. So I don't think that having a policy of never making membership of any group, ever, illegal is necessarily a wise one. Al-Quida and ISIS are two such groups, existing at present, where I feel legalising involvement in them is not a good policy. Their aims are not just abroad - they have committed acts, and tried to in the UK. They are not peaceful, legitimate pressure groups. They are armed sky fairy believing nutters. The fewer of them the better. And yes, making them illegal, and making membership of them illegal is something that the vast majority of peiople of whatever religion or nationality would see as a fair way to legislate.

 

 

All governments rest on the implicit threat of violence.  They would rather it remain implicit and unspoken if possible, but it's always there.  All groups seeking to become governments wish to gain access to what they hope will be a monolopy of the use of force in the area they hope to govern.  Existing governments designate their opponents as terrorist if they seek to use violence against them, even in response to state violence against the group itself - the ANC being one example among many.

 

Supporting a group which advocates the use of violence is a very odd basis for making something illegal.  Should it for example be illegal to facilitate people from here and the US travelling to Israel to join the IDF, or the settler groups who steal land and shoot the rightful owners?  Or to Kobani to fight with the PKK?

 

I don't think in general the line will hold that it's involvement in violence that can be a differentiating factor, since we are clearly content to accept people being members of, and supporting, all sorts of groups which advocate violence in pursuit of their aims.

 

If the position is that we should ban membership of groups which support the use of violence against people in this country, that would be clearer, though not a morally superior position, I would suggest.  But again, I would distinguish between someone who actively supports something, and someone who just intellectually supports it.  For example, in the case of that guy who shot two WPCs in Manchester a year or two ago, the law draws a clear distinction between someone who supplys the weapon and conceals the criminal, and someone who just thinks all police are fair game.  When someone expressed the latter view or something similar on Facebook, there was a problem in deciding how to tackle it.  Was the issue one of giving offence to people, or advocating violence, or what?

 

In the case of IS, if there were a group in this country which existed to raise funds and volunteers for them, and the condition of membership was that you had to be actively involved in doing this, would you see that as the same as if the group were a debating society aimed at putting forward the view that establishing a caliphate is a sacred duty and people in other countries deserve moral support for trying to do so?

[limpid]

 

Thorium is simply much safer. I'd have a thorium reactor in my house. I don't want uranium anywhere near people. And there is no (obvious) way to weaponise it.

 

The by products of the thorium fuel cycle are at the nasty end of the periodic table.

 

Sure you wouldn't mind the reactor in your house - but you'd want the waste removed, and though the decay time is a fraction of older technologies, it's still less than ideal.

Thorium reactors aren't pressurised and are therefore inherently safer. A 4cm ball of thorium would provide all the energy you use in your entire life (assuming LFTR), Even if it converts 100% into "nasty" things** (it doesn't) then that's a still an amount of waste that I can accept.

 

** It's neutron pumped into U-233 so it's exactly the same by products but with less plutonium.

[peterms]

 

 

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

 

 

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

 

most people  , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims  ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims   ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

 

 

If you seriously doubt that there is a climate of aggression towards Muslims, then speak to some.  We had a meeting this week where we heard from someone representing the Muslim Council of Scotland, and he was very clear that Muslims feel there is a climate of hostility which wasn't there a few years ago.

 

The figures bear out this anecdotal view.  You can find reports eg on the Tell Mama UK website giving stats.  As always, there are problems with the stats, eg underreporting, police forces keeping stats in different ways which impede analysis and so on, but the general picture is that within an overall reduction in hate crime, attacks on Muslims have increased.

[Xann]

I'm not going to insult you by linking the disadvantages, but there's enough problems with LFTR to put it in the 'needs further research' rather than the 'this is the answer' category.

 

We've heard it before.

 

Though being able to utilise nuclear waste from previous generations is attractive.

 

Tidal will do until they nail it.

[peterms]

I don't think anyone's denying that there's an anti-Muslim sentiment among some people, but to compare it to the Jews in Germany is going a bit far.

 

Perhaps you are reading too much into it.

 

I am saying that in pre-war Germany there was a persistent climate of race-hate directed towards Jews, which found expression in speeches, cartoons, newspaper articles and so on.  This created a climate of hostilty, which helped legitimise later acts of violence.

 

In the UK today, we have groups which specifically aim to promote anti-Muslim feeling, eg the thugs of the EDL and BNP.  As well as them, we have commentators in the press who attack Muslims in less vicious ways, people who think it's reasonable to demand that all Muslims accept responsibility for acts committed by other Muslims across the world, and so on.  This has led to an increase in verbal and physical violence against people who seem identifiably Muslim.

 

If you think I am saying that the position of Muslims here is exactly the same as that of Jews in Germany in 1939, er no, I'm not.

[Mantis]

 

I don't think anyone's denying that there's an anti-Muslim sentiment among some people, but to compare it to the Jews in Germany is going a bit far.

 

Perhaps you are reading too much into it.

 

I am saying that in pre-war Germany there was a persistent climate of race-hate directed towards Jews, which found expression in speeches, cartoons, newspaper articles and so on.  This created a climate of hostilty, which helped legitimise later acts of violence.

 

In the UK today, we have groups which specifically aim to promote anti-Muslim feeling, eg the thugs of the EDL and BNP.  As well as them, we have commentators in the press who attack Muslims in less vicious ways, people who think it's reasonable to demand that all Muslims accept responsibility for acts committed by other Muslims across the world, and so on.  This has led to an increase in verbal and physical violence against people who seem identifiably Muslim.

 

If you think I am saying that the position of Muslims here is exactly the same as that of Jews in Germany in 1939, er no, I'm not.

 

I know what you were talking about and I'm saying that the comparison goes a bit too far. From what I understand of pre-war Germany anti-Semitism was pretty widespread among the population and you simply can't say the same of present-day UK concerning Muslims. Similarly, some of the things said by commentators (like asking the Muslim community to do more to tackle extremism) isn't anywhere near as bad as the kind of things that were spouted in pre-war Germany about Jews.

 

No I don't think you're saying that but you're making a comparison to a country in a period of history that was quite openly anti-Semitic. There is nothing like that kind of anti-Muslim feeling in the UK.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Mantis

[limpid]

I'm not going to insult you by linking the disadvantages, but there's enough problems with LFTR to put it in the 'needs further research' rather than the 'this is the answer' category.

I didn't say it was the answer. I said that saying "no nuclear" means that further research won't happen.

[blandy]

All governments rest on the implicit threat of violence.  They would rather it remain implicit and unspoken if possible, but it's always there.  All groups seeking to become governments wish to gain access to what they hope will be a monolopy of the use of force in the area they hope to govern.  Existing governments designate their opponents as terrorist if they seek to use violence against them, even in response to state violence against the group itself - the ANC being one example among many.

 

Supporting a group which advocates the use of violence is a very odd basis for making something illegal.  Should it for example be illegal to facilitate people from here and the US travelling to Israel to join the IDF, or the settler groups who steal land and shoot the rightful owners?  Or to Kobani to fight with the PKK?

 

I don't think in general the line will hold that it's involvement in violence that can be a differentiating factor, ..

We're talking broadly about the green party policy in the Uk. The UK Gov't, I'm not sure rests on the threat of violence. It can be removed via the ballot box, and will be. it will be replaced by a different one.

 

If a group were set up or exists with the aim of violently overthrowing the UK gov't, (or committing acts of violence aimed at destabilising thesociety - whether via attacks on religious or ethnic groups, or on tube trains or airports etc.) then yes, I think joining it or being a member of it should be illegal.

 

In democracy, where the system is set up to work without violence, then the use of violence, the planning of it, the support via supplies of money or tools or recruitment to facilitiate it should be illegal.

 

In a non democracy - like they have in that abroad place, then the situation could be viewed differently. There I have more sypathy for your view. But the UK isn't abroad - we have tea and cricket and BBC 4 and they don't - we're not like them funny abroadians. Joining a group who wants to kill Michael Palin and David Attenbrough and Caroline Lucas and other members of our royalty is naughty and should be punishable by a spell in the big house.

 

With a democracy, if or where the Gov't and its agents act outside their own or international laws, then the case becomes more complex. Resistance to that illegal action, or defence against it, using force, could be legitimate. But again it would need to be second to attempts to use peaceful means - international law and so on. That's why the likes of Mr Tony Blair, GWB, Rummy and chums and the Israeli Gov't and others are so abominable - because their illegal deeds are not being punished and they're not being punished and dealt with. Democracy and international law demands and relies on adherence to peaceful methods of dealing with wrong acts, not violence. The solution is to prosecute our wrongdoers, not set up violent groups to vigilante/retaliate/impose some alternative "law" against them

[Xann]

I didn't say it was the answer. I said that saying "no nuclear" means that further research won't happen.

 

In the UK.

 

I can live with that.

 

We need clean, lower tech solutions now.

[limpid]

 

I didn't say it was the answer. I said that saying "no nuclear" means that further research won't happen.

 

In the UK.

 

I can live with that.

 

We need clean, lower tech solutions now.

I could live with "no new high pressure reactors". What you seem to be proposing is anti-science. Even if I accept your proposition of "lower tech solutions now", I want the possibility of high tech solutions in the medium term. "No nuclear power" disallows a huge set of solutions and appears to be based on FUD.

[peterms]

 

All governments rest on the implicit threat of violence.  They would rather it remain implicit and unspoken if possible, but it's always there.  All groups seeking to become governments wish to gain access to what they hope will be a monolopy of the use of force in the area they hope to govern.  Existing governments designate their opponents as terrorist if they seek to use violence against them, even in response to state violence against the group itself - the ANC being one example among many.

 

Supporting a group which advocates the use of violence is a very odd basis for making something illegal.  Should it for example be illegal to facilitate people from here and the US travelling to Israel to join the IDF, or the settler groups who steal land and shoot the rightful owners?  Or to Kobani to fight with the PKK?

 

I don't think in general the line will hold that it's involvement in violence that can be a differentiating factor, ..

We're talking broadly about the green party policy in the Uk. The UK Gov't, I'm not sure rests on the threat of violence. It can be removed via the ballot box, and will be. it will be replaced by a different one.

 

If a group were set up or exists with the aim of violently overthrowing the UK gov't, (or committing acts of violence aimed at destabilising thesociety - whether via attacks on religious or ethnic groups, or on tube trains or airports etc. then yes, I think joining it or being a member of it should be illegal.

 

In democracy, where the system is set up to work without violence, then the use of violence, the planning of it, the support via supplies of money or tools or recruitment to facilitiate it should be illegal.

 

In a non democracy - like they have in that abroad place, then the situation could be viewed differently. There I have more sypathy for your view. But the UK isn't abroad - we have tea and cricket and BBC 4 and they don't - we're not like them funny abroadians. Joining a group who wants to kill Michael Palin and David Attenbrough and Caroline Lucas and other members of our royalty is naughty and should be punishable by a spell in the big house.

 

With a democracy, if or where the Gov't and its agents act outside their own or international laws, then the case becomes more complex. Resistance to that illegal action, or defence against it, using force, could be legitimate. But again it would need to be second to attempts to use peaceful means - international law and so on. That's why the likes of Mr Tony Blair, GWB, Rummy and chums and the Israeli Gov't and others are so abominable - because their illegal deeds are not being punished and they're not being punished and dealt with. Democracy and international law demands and relies on adherence to peaceful methods of dealing with wrong acts, not violence. The solution is to prosecute our wrongdoers, not set up violent groups to vigilante/retaliate/impose some alternative "law" against them

 

 

One of the defining factors of a state is that it claims the monopoly on legitimate use of force in its defined area (interesting to see IS's claim to "statehood" in that light).  The UK is no different in that respect.  It is slower to resort to the actual use of force than for example the Egyptian military dictatorship.  Within the UK state, we manage the transition between governments without the use of violence.  But our government, like all others, rests on the threat of using force against dissidents, whether that is the way demonstrations are policed, or whatever.  The actual violence is kept to a minimum, but the implicit threat is always there.

 

As for membership of organisations, if, say, Nelson Mandela had managed to escape to this country instead of being locked up on Robben Island, would you have thought he should be prosecuted for being part of an organisation which should have been deemed illegal?  I doubt you would, but I do think this is where your argument takes you.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

...the act is the expression of views, rather than the private holding of views.  Banning organisations crosses that line, and I find it very problematic.

It can be but isn't always an expression of views. Various organisations have the aim of using force and violence to achieve their objective. Membership of such is more than expressing a view, or hold opinions. It's supporting and being (potentially in the future, or actually now) involved in violence. Prevention of that involvement is seen by most reasonable people as a good thing. So I don't think that having a policy of never making membership of any group, ever, illegal is necessarily a wise one. Al-Quida and ISIS are two such groups, existing at present, where I feel legalising involvement in them is not a good policy. Their aims are not just abroad - they have committed acts, and tried to in the UK. They are not peaceful, legitimate pressure groups. They are armed sky fairy believing nutters. The fewer of them the better. And yes, making them illegal, and making membership of them illegal is something that the vast majority of peiople of whatever religion or nationality would see as a fair way to legislate.

 

 

All governments rest on the implicit threat of violence.  They would rather it remain implicit and unspoken if possible, but it's always there.  All groups seeking to become governments wish to gain access to what they hope will be a monolopy of the use of force in the area they hope to govern.  

 

I quite agree.

 

By this definition no one who tries to get into power can be considered nice because ultimately they are demonstrating their desire to exercise both force and violence against people who disagree with them.

 

The people of the Green party are attempting to get into government, so they can enjoy the monopoly of force enjoyed by the state to compel people to comply to whatever they decide.

 

When enforcing their laws the state will escalate the amount of violence until a person submits.

[Avfc96]

The Green party are a bunch of communist nutters.

[peterms]

The Green party are a bunch of communist nutters.

Excellent! Four pages of mealymouthed waffle, but then we get to this penetrating insight!

Give that man a coconut.

[blandy]

....if, say, Nelson Mandela had managed to escape to this country instead of being locked up on Robben Island, would you have thought he should be prosecuted for being part of an organisation which should have been deemed illegal?  I doubt you would, but I do think this is where your argument takes you.

Were the ANC a proscribed terrorist group by the UK Gov't?

Would Thatcher have let him in? What with him not being a Chilean torturer, I expect he'd not have been let in. I remember she called him a terrorist, using her impeccable judgement, as ever (the old bat).

In reality, a foreign national, not a UK resident (or visitor), being a member of a group that another Gov't than ours has on it's list, isn't remotely the same as our Gov't saying Joe Bloggs from Edinburgh joining ISIS would be illegal under UK law.

I take your implied point about one man's freedom fighter...etc. nevertheless

[kidlewis]

Their economic policy isn't viable, not one bit. 

 

Their approach is laudable, cycling, improving inner cities to make cycling much safer and easier to utilise, greener energies faster etc. It can't happen in the way they want, because it means ripping other stuff apart. 

 

Shutting down the MoD is just mental, absolute madness. Whilst Humans fight each other, it's required. Maybe if Independence Day comes true and Humans have to band together to fight an alien invasion and live beyond our own atmosphere then maybe. Until then.... you need an MoD. We aren't Switzerland. 

 

 

Government seems adverse of making a profit, this I whole heartily disagree with. The recent take over of the East Coast Mainline was actually (according to passengers) better than ever under government ownership, and was (allegedly) turning a profit? Yet we sold it off to private. 

 

I wouldn't have done that. Maybe someone can tell me why, but £235m a year is a bloody good thing considering it was government led AND was getting positive feedback. 

 

I think at this time when the country has a deficit, passing something back to the state when it's going well shouldn't be the case. If they could claw back a bit more over a few years and invest in the structure down there, then why not sell it off when the country is in a better state and get a bit more for it?

[chrisp65]

I'd love for the UK to be at peace with the world. It needs to happen.

 

Unfortunately, at the moment, disbanding the military, getting rid of nuclear and getting out of NATO and only acting in conflicts under the direction of the OCSE (incidentally, the Ukraine are members of the OCSE, that's done wonders for them hasn't it) doesn't feel like a great idea. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

COMMIES?!!?!

[villaajax]

Even the woman I saw at the Dutch consulate told me that I'm safer traveling under a Dutch passport than British.