Why are people scared to be defiant any more?

[saunaman]

Really disappointed that the majority of UK citizens seem to be scared and cowed individuals who claim child-rearing concerns are their priority whilst ignoring the fact that the future of their precious children lies in their own hands right now.

 

There's gonna be no NHS for your kids , they will be too concerned with paying off the wicked PFI contracts which Labour brought in meaning that we are paying 3 times the cost of building something , but so what , it's all on credit for future generations to sort out

[Rupert_Baehr]

And your proposed solution is?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. Your children, my children and their children will (if they live in the UK) be stuck with paying for their parents and will be expected to put aside money to pay for themselves when they reach their parents' age.

 

Many of the services previous generations have been able to take for granted in the past are now under-funded. The money those people paid in paid for the services received by their predecessors

 

At some time the people will have to accept that there simply isn't enough money in the pot to pay for everything.

[*_ash_*]

Really disappointed that the majority of UK citizens seem to be scared and cowed individuals who claim child-rearing concerns are their priority whilst ignoring the fact that the future of their precious children lies in their own hands right now.

 

There's gonna be no NHS for your kids , they will be too concerned with paying off the wicked PFI contracts which Labour brought in meaning that we are paying 3 times the cost of building something , but so what , it's all on credit for future generations to sort out

 

The problem is that what needs doing would cause a massive crash. And no government will risk doing it, as they won't see government for decades.

[Rupert_Baehr]

The problem is that what needs doing would cause a massive crash. And no government will risk doing it, as they won't see government for decades.

 

That is a major problem, but I suggest that governments have been doing it for at least the last 30 years. They try to hide what they are doing from the people (and in many cases, they seem to be managing to do that.)

 

If you've read my previous posts on 'ring-fencing' you will be aware that I am a strong proponent of taxes being levied to provide certain services and the monies raised by those taxes being dedicated to (ring fenced for) those services.

 

You pay taxes for pensions? - That money should go to pensions (and politicians should be forbidden from diverting it to other uses.)

 

You pay taxes for healthcare? - That money should go to healthcare (and politicians should be forbidden from diverting it to other uses.

 

It may well be (And indeed it is) impossible to fund healthcare from personal taxation, so the government should identify the source (and amount) of the funds to be raised from other sources and those funds should be treated in exactly the same manner as those obtained from personal taxation.

 

If the funding from all sources for the NHS is inadequate, then additional funds may have to be raised for user fees.

 

(Holds hos breath waiting for the outcry: "But the NHS is free at the point of service."

 

That NHS has long gone. Originally, there was enough money to make it free. Times have changed.

 

The (cost of the) range of services the customers expect from the NHS has outstripped the funding.

 

You either have to pay a 'per use' charge, or the services provided will have to be limited.

 

Perhaps there should be a formal and public declaration of what will (and what will not) be provided?

 

We all know that not every service is provided everywhere - and recent news reports suggest that in some places (Cardiff?) people are required to wait until they are dead before they are considered for treatment.

 

Perhaps the government (who, I understand, are responsible for the NHS?) should tell people what they can -and what they cannot expect.

[*_ash_*]

That is a major problem, but I suggest that governments have been doing it for at least the last 30 years. They try to hide what they are doing from the people (and in many cases, they seem to be managing to do that.)

 

If you've read my previous posts on 'ring-fencing' you will be aware that I am a strong proponent of taxes being levied to provide certain services and the monies raised by those taxes being dedicated to (ring fenced for) those services.

 

You pay taxes for pensions? - That money should go to pensions (and politicians should be forbidden from diverting it to other uses.)

 

You pay taxes for healthcare? - That money should go to healthcare (and politicians should be forbidden from diverting it to other uses.

 

It may well be (And indeed it is) impossible to fund healthcare from personal taxation, so the government should identify the source (and amount) of the funds to be raised from other sources and those funds should be treated in exactly the same manner as those obtained from personal taxation.

 

If the funding from all sources for the NHS is inadequate, then additional funds may have to be raised for user fees.

 

(Holds hos breath waiting for the outcry: "But the NHS is free at the point of service."

 

That NHS has long gone. Originally, there was enough money to make it free. Times have changed.

 

The (cost of the) range of services the customers expect from the NHS has outstripped the funding.

 

You either have to pay a 'per use' charge, or the services provided will have to be limited.

 

Perhaps there should be a formal and public declaration of what will (and what will not) be provided?

 

We all know that not every service is provided everywhere - and recent news reports suggest that in some places (Cardiff?) people are required to wait until they are dead before they are considered for treatment.

 

Perhaps the government (who, I understand, are responsible for the NHS?) should tell people what they can -and what they cannot expect.

 

They were all set up that way weren't they? That's how I understand it.

 

Now it is a central pot.

 

I posted a thread about some of these things (that the OP mentions) last month but no one replied hardly. See here

[Anna B]

Really disappointed that the majority of UK citizens seem to be scared and cowed individuals who claim child-rearing concerns are their priority whilst ignoring the fact that the future of their precious children lies in their own hands right now.

 

There's gonna be no NHS for your kids , they will be too concerned with paying off the wicked PFI contracts which Labour brought in meaning that we are paying 3 times the cost of building something , but so what , it's all on credit for future generations to sort out

 

For all our supposed 'Freedoms' there's been a creeping clamp down on our liberty imposed quietly by legislation and stealth.

 

There's been a very public crackdown, for example, on the London rioters with accompanying propaganda, and a continual divide and conquer campaign in the media setting one section of the huddled masses against another, (Not for nothing is Rupert Murdoch the friend of the great and the good...) While legislation has slipped through almost unnoticed. It's not until you cross it that you even become aware of it, and by then it's too late.

 

The police are no longer the force of the people keeping order with reason and common sense, but an instrument of government suppression as witnessed by Ian Tomlinson.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Poppet mentioned (on the 'Great Britain' thread) a documentary on living in Germany.

 

One of the (not quite) "throwaway' lines in that documentary said [words to the effect] 'we work together because we are a community'.

 

I spend about half of my life in Germany and thart attitude is prevalent. it prevails in the taxation system, too. (The German government wouldn't dare to try to pull the tricks the British government gets away with.)

 

If the people pay money for healthcare - that money goes to healthcare. If they don't pay enough, then either the government raises the healthcare tax rate or the people pay higher co-payments.

 

The 'Central Pot' scheme is an abomination.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 00:14 ----------

 

For all our supposed 'Freedoms' there's been a creeping clamp down on our liberty imposed quietly by legislation and stealth.

 

There's been a very public crackdown, for example, on the London rioters with accompanying propaganda...

 

What 'Rights' do you think should be granted to rioters? Should rioters have more 'rights' than their victims?

 

Perhaps we should go back to the old regime (before the 'creeping clampdown')

 

Read the Riot Act to the rioters and then smash them into submission (or shoot them, if necessary.)

 

Better than a 'creeping clampdown' any day, isn't it?

 

If you were one of the many people whose lives were made a misery by the London Rioters - one of those who was terrified by the rioting, one of those who lost personal possessions , one of those who lost commercial assets - How would you feel about the 'creeping clampdown'?

 

(Please don't forget to answer, Anna.)

[Anna B]

Poppet mentioned (on the 'Great Britain' thread) a documentary on living in Germany.

 

One of the (not quite) "throwaway' lines in that documentary said [words to the effect] 'we work together because we are a community'.

 

I spend about half of my life in Germany and thart attitude is prevalent. it prevails in the taxation system, too. (The German government wouldn't dare to try to pull the tricks the British government gets away with.)

 

If the people pay money for healthcare - that money goes to healthcare. If they don't pay enough, then either the government raises the healthcare tax rate or the people pay higher co-payments.

 

The 'Central Pot' scheme is an abomination.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 00:14 ----------

 

 

What 'Rights' do you think should be granted to rioters? Should rioters have more 'rights' than their victims?

 

Perhaps we should go back to the old regime (before the 'creeping clampdown')

 

Read the Riot Act to the rioters and then smash them into submission (or shoot them, if necessary.)

 

Better than a 'creeping clampdown' any day, isn't it?

 

If you were one of the many people whose lives were made a misery by the London Rioters - one of those who was terrified by the rioting, one of those who lost personal possessions , one of those who lost commercial assets - How would you feel about the 'creeping clampdown'?

 

(Please don't forget to answer, Anna.)

 

The OP asked why British people are scared to be defiant and seemed scared and cowed.

 

I'm saying that the punishments handed out to the London rioters is part of the reason. It was a definate intention of the government to make a public example of them to deter future protesters. The destruction wrought by the rioters was dreadful and I have never advocated riots as a means of change -exactly the opposite if you look at my posts, but there is a world of difference between that and peaceful protest.

 

However, every demonstration is seen as a potential riot and dealt with accordingly by the police with 'kettling' and the like. Unless it turns nasty it's message is all but ignored by the media, and it often turns nasty because of the over reaction of the police. Therefore the majority of demonstrations portrayed by the media are about trouble and arrests, reminiscent of the riots which puts people off.

 

There are people all over the country trying to get their message across peacefully in protests every day that never get a mention - which begs the question why do they bother? But add them all up and they register as a very sizable body of discontented people, albeit with no voice, and they are just the visable tip of the iceberg.

 

What would you advocate as a way of getting your message to the government (that they are ruining our country and it has to stop) noticed, when the ballot box means about as much to them as it does to Mugabe?

 

PS. I agree with your first point about the 'central pot.'

[megalithic]

What would you advocate as a way of getting your message to the government (that they are ruining our country and it has to stop) noticed, when the ballot box means about as much to them as it does to Mugabe?

 

Not aimed at me but i'll answer anyway.

 

I've no doubt at some point in he future we'll see "organised" riots and a mini revolution, and i'll welcome it.

 

It's time people woke up and realised MP's are only in the job to line their own pockets at our expense, they they'll fly the coup to more pleasant lands.

 

Revolution is almost ripe imo.

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

 

I'm saying that the punishments handed out to the London rioters is part of the reason. It was a definate intention of the government to make a public example of them to deter future protesters. The destruction wrought by the rioters was dreadful and I have never advocated riots as a means of change -exactly the opposite if you look at my posts, but there is a world of difference between that and peaceful protest.

 

...'

 

A riot is a riot. The English Language is not so degraded that 'riot' can be misinterpreted as being 'more than mildly upset.'

 

The London Rioters were just that. Rioters. Not Protesters.

 

People liost their homes. People were terrified (with good cause, too.) People lost their possessions.

 

You don't (if you've got any sense) 'wave your hands around in the air' to dissuade rioters. If you determine that they are rioters then you treat them as such.

 

Read the Riot Act and act on it.

 

I've no problem whatsoever with protestors (even when they make my life very awkward -which has happened in the past. they have a RIGHT to protest and I'll put up with it. (I was a protestor last month ... as I am every year. )(I have a cause)

 

I'm a protestor - not a bloody rioter! I didn't scare people, I didn't destroy their property and I don't (and morally can't) support people who do.

 

IMO, the London RIOTERS got off far too lightly.

 

10 years would do as a sentence for rioting.

 

Anything less is a joke.