A group has been created with the aim of removing the government

Accelerantionists and their followers top the violence and murder toll.

Anything related to Antifa pales into insignificance beside these white supremacist/ nationalist, klu klux klan etc. have achieved.

I am a she by the way.

My comments re deaths were not directed at Antifa I have in my opinion been discussing the wider picture of the protests /riots/looting /vandalism /deaths which have been connected to the ANTIFA/Black Lives Matter ' radical activists' protesters not those who have every right to peaceful protest.

If that has been misconstrued I am happy to apologies as personal insult is insignificant when the world is going to hell in a hand cart and the matter should be open for discussion.

As for ANTIFA and it's history I obviously knew how it started but I prefer to understand and follow what is happening now, for my generation and my granddaughters generation. The same with having the knowledge of who, how Black Lives Matter was founded and where it has progressed.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/X56rQkDgd0qqB7R68t6t7C/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-antifa

Extracts

Why do they all dress in black?

Like other protest movements dating back to Cold War era West German anarchists, Antifa supporters will often dress all in black, sometimes covering their faces with masks or helmets so they can’t be identified by opposing groups or the police. It's an intimidating tactic – known as a "black bloc" – which also allows them to move together as one anonymous group. There are also offshoots - one Antifa group in Oregon said they also have a "snack bloc" of people who provide food and water for their allies during protests.

What tactics do they use?

Antifa look to disrupt alt-right events and far-right speakers. They use a variety of tactics to do this – including shouting and chanting and forming human chains to block off right-wing demonstrators. Some are unapologetic about their online tactics, which include monitoring the far right on social media. They also release personal information about their opponents online, commonly known as "doxxing" – they’ve gotten some alt-right supporters fired from their jobs after identifying them online.

Antifa groups also use more traditional forms of community organising like rallies and protest marches. The most extreme factions will carry weapons like pepper spray, knives, bricks and chains – and they don’t rule out violence.

How violent are they?

Their willingness to use violence marks out Antifa from many other left-wing activists, although the Antifa members we spoke to said they denounce the use of weapons and violent direct action. They said if violence does occur, it’s as a form of self-defence. They also make historical arguments to justify their position. For instance, they ask, what if opponents of the German Nazi Party had been more forceful in their opposition in the 1930s, could World War Two and the Holocaust have been averted?

Antifa have been directly and sometimes physically confronting the far right on the streets and, in some cases, they have been successful in postponing, cutting short or cancelling rallies and speeches up and down America.
-

ANTIFA does not only concentrate on the far right these days in my opinion and it is openly anti capitalism, globalisation etc and will be found wherever it can conduct it's trade which usually is not in peaceful protest or allowing free speech to those they oppose and that is it's aim.

Whether a group is far left /far right it matters not a jot if violence/intimidation is initiated by that group in order to start a violent protest so I agree there is often blame to be found on both sides but when the mantra is disruption don't be surprised if that is how it is perceived.

Elegran

Fryingpans and fire come into mind.

Indeed! My personal belief is that it's not Cummings who is pulling the strings. I think he's useful because he's not constrained by having to be accountable to voters and will go where others won't tread. I suspect Gove would keep him in that role.

What is really needed is for some Conservative politicians to show some back bone. The worst that could happen to them is that they lose the whip for four years, but they could still vote with the Conservatives when it suited them. They could be more accountable to their constituents and/or vote with their consciences.

After four years, they might not be selected, but they might have earned some respect and would almost certainly not be short of employment offers.

The other contender is Sunak, but I doubt if he has the political experience to put his foot down and establish himself.

Gove is a wily political operator.

Fryingpans and fire come into mind.

Not if the successor is Gove. Cummings and Gove go way back.

History has many examples of advisors who used monarchs and leaders as puppets. If they have a stronger personality than the nominal ruler, they can execute a lot of "power behind the throne"

Hereditary direct monarchs varied greatly in their ability or desire to actually rule their kingdoms. Some "advisors" to royalty were executed for treason, some caused kings to be dethroned and whole dynasties to fall. Rasputin contributed to the execution of the whole imperial family. Many were summarily dismissed when their "master" was succeeded on the throne by someone with ideas of his/her own and the strength to impose them.

If Johnson loses his position as PM, his successor will probaly get rid of Cummings too. The danger is that he could have caused irreversable damage to the democratic system and the infrastructure of the UK, without there being any equivalent structure to replace them.

Tbh this sounds like a waste of time and money.
You'd be better off joining an Oppostion Party and working hard in your local constituency to inform people that there are better options out there and persuade them to vote for them in the next election in May 2024.
The government we have at present under Boris Johnson is undoubtedly dreadful, but attempting to remove them by some amateur coup is only going to get you laughed at and achieve nothing.

Callistemon

If anyone thinks a republic is preferable to a benign monarchical system only has to think one word: Cummings.

I shudder at the thought.

I don't think a republic is preferable, but it's not a black and white situation.

Democracy in the UK has always been complex - evolutionary rather than revolutionary - with no written constituion, as countries such as Germany, France and the US have.

Many of the principles on which most people's understanding of democracy are based, are being undermined under our noses.

Grandad1943

varian

It often seems to be Cummings pulling Johnson's strings, not the other way round. It certainly did not seem when the previous chancellor resigned that Cummings' action was at the behest of the Cabinet or the entire Government, it may not even have been at the PM's behest. Cummings seems to do exactly what he wants and gets away with it, leaving many to ponder "why?"

A Prime Minister can appoint or dismiss any minister of government as he so wishes, nothing new in that.

Dark conspiracy theories again, don't some people just love them. ??

You seem a little naive about hierarchies in large organisations can work. The boss is not always in charge, despite having the formal authority. Personalities are also important.

Unfortunately our benign monarchy has not been able to protect us from this malign government Callistemon

Have you forgotten how Johnson was able to lie to the Queen and close down Parliament?

If anyone thinks a republic is preferable to a benign monarchical system only has to think one word: Cummings.

I shudder at the thought.

‘A corruption of Conservatism’: how a cartel of Tory MPs broke British politics- In an extract from his new book, Peter Geoghegan shows how the European Research Group became a tightly organised ‘party within a party’ that set the UK on course for a no-deal Brexit.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/a-corruption-of-conservatism-how-a-cartel-of-tory-mps-broke-british-politics/

Peter Geoghan is a well respected investigative journalist, very far from a conspiracy theorist Grandad.

I recommend that you read his recently published book "Democracy for Sale - Dark Money and Dirty Politics".

Although it was completed early this year, and therefore does not cover the exceptional circumstances of the last six months, it clearly sets out the evidence for attacks on democracy, in the UK and worldwide.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/a-corruption-of-conservatism-how-a-cartel-of-tory-mps-broke-british-politics/

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/16/democracy-for-sale-peter-geoghegan-review-vote-leave-brexit-data-dark-money

varian

It often seems to be Cummings pulling Johnson's strings, not the other way round. It certainly did not seem when the previous chancellor resigned that Cummings' action was at the behest of the Cabinet or the entire Government, it may not even have been at the PM's behest. Cummings seems to do exactly what he wants and gets away with it, leaving many to ponder "why?"

A Prime Minister can appoint or dismiss any minister of government as he so wishes, nothing new in that.

Dark conspiracy theories again, don't some people just love them. ??

So why did they all appoint or acquiesce in the choice of Cummings (a committed anarchist who wishes to destroy or bypass British institutions, including the Civil Service and presumably the institutions of an elected Parliament, and a PM and cabinet answerable to that Parliament) to advise the PM and to engage in the actions you speak o

How were they persuaded into that action? That is the murkiness of which I posted.

The Prime Minister is not a dictator, he is answerable to Parliament - even re his advisors. He should have good reasons to choose them, and Cabinet ministers and rank and file MPs have a right to check on their past record and present connections and make reprentations to the PM if they are not happy with it.

Oh come on Grandad1943 that would require Boris to read all the stuff and think about things, much easier to say "OK Dom!". Leaves him more time for Carrie, Wilfred and whoever ele he is currently pursuing.

It often seems to be Cummings pulling Johnson's strings, not the other way round. It certainly did not seem when the previous chancellor resigned that Cummings' action was at the behest of the Cabinet or the entire Government, it may not even have been at the PM's behest. Cummings seems to do exactly what he wants and gets away with it, leaving many to ponder "why?"

Cummings as political adviser to the Prime Minister has the power that Boris Johnson cares to give to him.

As the Elected Prime Minister Johnson can act on any advice that Cummings gives him, or ignore such advice.

Whatever action Cummings engages in would also be at the behest of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the entire Government.

Simple as that.

Cummings position is murky indeed. As far as we know there has never been a politically appointed special advisor with such seemingly unlimited power.

varian

I assumed that Elegran was referring to Cummings, not Johnson.

Johnson appointed Cummings to his position and the Electorate appointed Johnson to his position.

Still no " murky fog" in that.

I assumed that Elegran was referring to Cummings, not Johnson.

Elegran

How on earth did someone who has clearly stated that he wants to close down the institutions of the country end up in charge of them?
What leverage does he have over those who appointed him to his position of power, or who don't seem to have objected to the appointment?
There is a lot of murky fog surrounding him which cannot be seen through.

Elegran, Boris Johnson was elected to lead the Conservative Party by the members of that party.

He was then voted to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain by the electorate of the United Kingdom under the electoral system that governs the appointment of administrations in the United Kingdom.

How can there be any "murky fog" surrounding that??????

Firecracker123

Just wishful thinking by some to think that the Conservatives are going to get rid of Boris Johnson, it was because of Boris that they won a stomping 80 majority ?

This is absolutely true Firecracker

whitewave says they should have chosen the manager (Hunt) instead, and he would have been my choice for PM too, but actually it would have been a mistake because they wouldn’t have got in with such a majority if they had done that.Johnson is very popular with all kinds of people including former Labour voters, and that fact has to be acknowledged.

Spot on Grandad1943

trisher, in regard to your post @10:38 today, I too along with many others believe that the Black Lives Matter organisation is set on violent and anarchist means as the basis for their objectives, whatever those objectives may be.

There is in the United Kingdom already comprehensive legislation that enables any who find racism and discrimination in their lives to take action in that instance.

That I believe POGS was advising over several posts and in that I do not believe he was making personal or insulting remarks, but just challenging what you had stated.

Also, the situation in the United States in regard to racism and discrimination is far different from the situation here in Britain, and I do not believe that they should be compared in any way.