Is UK An Elite Dictaorship?

And that’s a point in question. Does anyone imagine that the general public really want these protests to be allowed to carry on like they have been for all these months? The public would like them to protest in Parliament Square on the grass, not by stopping them from going about their legitimate business. The public would like the police to remove them. But the politicians are not worried about the public or what they would like. The politicians simply want the public’s vote every five years.

The UK is probably less elitist than many other nations anyone has access to the education to enable them to take part in political activity, others have the natural ability to lead others.
Particularly in developing countries it is only the children of the wealthy that get the opportunities.
China has been mentioned, it’s a one party state the only way to progress up the political ladder is to work for the party, failing to do that results in immediate dismissal. Individual wealth is permitted only with the participation of the government.

Yes, but now that more people have degrees, we are told that they are worthless. People now need to get Masters degrees to stand out, and ministers persuade people that the sorts of subjects that teach people to be critical of them and their methods are ‘Mickey Mouse’. It is not in the interests of those who used to be ‘elite’ simply because they were fortunate enough to go to university to have widening participation so they sneer at the achievements of others. And whilst everyone is allowed to access education, it is naive to think that access is truly equal. Despite widening participation it is still children from middle class backgrounds who make up the majority of students, particularly in higher-ranking institutions.

maddyone

Oh for goodness sake! Does anyone seriously imagine that China would tolerate the Just Stop Oil protests like they’ve been tolerated here? Or the GreenPeace stunt yesterday on the PM’s house?

Did you read the legislation maddyone? Are you happy that a government minister can alter legal definitions?
The ability of the Government to unilaterally change these definitions means that any person protesting could find themselves caught out by new wording that makes their activity a “serious disruption”, depending on what the Government chooses
Think of the demonstrations which would probably have been restricted by this act
Most women's suffrage activities
Most CND activities
The Cable Street battle
The anti-Iraq war march
Are you happy to see such things banned in a democracy?

I support the right to protest, but I can't support these "walk in the road" ones. They have, in London, prevented ambulances getting through, people with hospital appointments, schools, funerals etc. as well as those trying to earn a living.

It's deeply unfair, and often costly, on those trying to just go about their business.

With the old style protests, the police were informed, we all knew, and avoided those areas unless taking part. Yes, some got out of hand, as in the Poll Tax "riot", but most made their point without aggro.

They should keep the protests to Parliament Square.

Sorry there was a paywall. Interesting replies. Trying to take rgings easy as it is 7.30am here and son is taking me to doctor as heart is playing up. Feel guilty for not responding.

Hope your doctor can sort things out, Annie.

I support the right to protest I dont want the elected leader the country to have such poor security that this happens. The next people on the roof may have different aims to an environmental group. They may be violent aims. That's not democracy.

I also support the right to protest, but I don’t support protesters preventing people from going about their legitimate business. I don’t suppose protesters preventing ambulances getting sick people to hospital. I don’t support protesters preventing children from going to school, workers from getting to work, or people being unable to make appointments and meetings. I don’t support protesters preventing funerals from taking place. Protests should take place in a specified place which should be published so members of the public can avoid them if they wish. The police should remove any protesters who block pubic highways because it is already an offence to block a public highway and requires no new law.

Galaxy

I support the right to protest I dont want the elected leader the country to have such poor security that this happens. The next people on the roof may have different aims to an environmental group. They may be violent aims. That's not democracy.

They may, but if the PM and his family have personal security they should be fine wherever they are. Not having a personal fleet of security guards at each of several properties is not undemocratic.

That doesn't mean that the trespassers shouldn't be prosecuted though - just that it should be a police matter (ie dealt with as it arose), not a security one (ie guarded against round the clock).

Galaxy

I support the right to protest I dont want the elected leader the country to have such poor security that this happens. The next people on the roof may have different aims to an environmental group. They may be violent aims. That's not democracy.

The country's 'leader' wasn't actually there at the time, Galaxy. He was in California as everybody knows because the told them on LBC that that was where he was off to. Which is why, I suspect, that Greenpeace chose that particular moment to climb on his roof...

I agree with personal protection but I don't think that his property is entitled, in his absence, to any more protection than that of the properties of the rest of the country's citizens.

Someone was complaining upthread about the police lack of interest in crimes like burglary. That is because the police numbers have been cut so much during the last 13 years of tory government that they don't have the manpower to spare for 'minor' crime. Members of the government should have to be treated exactly the same as the rest of us and put up with the consequences of their party's policies when in power.

It appears we're thinking along the same lines, Dd ...

Yes I know he wasnt there. There is something about this that makes me uneasy, I think if you cheer it on so to speak, you have to understand that you are in a sense cheering it on for groups who may be violent extremists. There is something about the importance of protecting elected officials that seems to be getting lost by the fact that Sunak is rich.

Galaxy good post

Yes Maizie I was the person who mentioned lack of police interest in burglary (or any other perceived minor crime) and I’m perfectly well aware that this has been caused by the huge reduction in police numbers, something I totally disagree with. But that’s the point, the government of whatever colour, in this case Conservative, take little account of what we, the public want. Probably most, like me, would want more police, not fewer, and the public would want crimes investigated properly. But although we live in a democracy the public are being ignored and we have fewer police and fewer crimes investigated. It’s not democratic.

Galaxy

Yes I know he wasnt there. There is something about this that makes me uneasy, I think if you cheer it on so to speak, you have to understand that you are in a sense cheering it on for groups who may be violent extremists. There is something about the importance of protecting elected officials that seems to be getting lost by the fact that Sunak is rich.

It isn't anything to do with extremism to think that it isn't the duty of the state to protect the private property of anyone, no matter what their position. There are plenty of private firms who offer security options for property.
Protecting elected officials is a different matter from protecting their property. After all as has been pointed out many times the RF are only given security if they are working.

I don't care that he is rich, and I'm not cheering on terrorism (or vandalism or trespass). I do care that security costs money that is being denied to much more worthy causes, and it can't be used to protect empty properties that someone is not using. Of course the police should get involved when something happens, but that should happen in the same way for Mr and Mrs Sunak as for Mr and Mrs Average. He doesn't need several properties, and if he chooses to have them he should staff them or sort out his own security.

I am I suppose a Republican, I think however if we have a royal family they should have security, if we agree with the system( I dont but that's by the by the majority do) I do think we have some responsibility to protect those within it.

Well, we have a tradition of giving security to certain MPs/PMs and the royals.

As Sunak is very rarely at this property, perhaps security/alarms might be an option.

I'm a Republican, in the sense I don't real really see any point to the royals, but I accept the majority do.

But, as far as Sunak's problem is concerned then either we accept a PM should be protected, wherever his home might be, or we say that we don't want to protect properties, belonging the the so called "great and good" that aren't inhabited at the time.

Other than that trespass is a civil offence, and not that serious..

MaizieD
Demanding ID for voting is unnecessary and removes a right. It disenfranchises people.

Most things, even registering with a doctor or dentist or getting a bus pass, require ID.

As DiamondLily posted,
I can tell the difference, but if I go into my bank to do anything much, they want ID.

When I registered my DHs death, they wanted ID.

To get benefits, they require ID.

All essential services,

Requiring a passport or a Driving Licence as ID for voting would disenfranchise far more people than having to get a free ID card. The cost of a passport is nearly £100 and increasing and a driving license involves the cost of lessons and tests.
People dislike being obliged to do things which they feel has no value for them, even if it’s free.
If you want to do something or you value something, you make the effort.

maddyone

I also support the right to protest, but I don’t support protesters preventing people from going about their legitimate business. I don’t suppose protesters preventing ambulances getting sick people to hospital. I don’t support protesters preventing children from going to school, workers from getting to work, or people being unable to make appointments and meetings. I don’t support protesters preventing funerals from taking place. Protests should take place in a specified place which should be published so members of the public can avoid them if they wish. The police should remove any protesters who block pubic highways because it is already an offence to block a public highway and requires no new law.

The law on disability was changed when disabled people took to the streets and blocked roads. These days they would be locked up for doing it. Every time you see an accessible bus or other adaptation think of them
www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-34732084
Most of the rights we now enjoy were only given after people had demonstrated.

I was part of the campaign for disabled people. I am disabled. No protest I went on involved blocking roads or involving private property.

Some may have, but nothing I was involved in.

DiamondLily

I was part of the campaign for disabled people. I am disabled. No protest I went on involved blocking roads or involving private property.

Some may have, but nothing I was involved in.

Lots of them did and they were the ones that made the news. As I said those people would be arrested now and probably receive a prison sentence. Is that OK?

maddyone

There nothing wrong with voter ID in my opinion. If people can’t be bothered to get the free ID offered, they can’t be that bothered about voting.

Plenty of people can’t be bothered to vote anyway.

Some of the people who can't be bothered to vote have been persuaded by The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Express, etc that "they're all the same so what's the point?"

This line has been put out whenever it seems impossible to persuade these readers to vote Conservative.

Unfortunately it does seem to work.