Protesting outside conferences

[woodmally]

Police reckon it was 60,000 which is not an inconsiderable number by anyone's reckoning.

 

And I object strongly to the disrespectful use of the word 'scum' to describe them in this thread. They are people like you and me.

 

Well they're not people like me. Regardless of how I voted I accept that the Tories won, be it a small, majority in the general election and dont see why we should have these protests.

 

What are they objecting too the voters that voted the tories in. Maybe they should focus their attention on actually finding policies voters will agree with.

 

Someone mentioned the Iraq war protests. Well that is different as no member of the public voted for the war in Iraq. It wasn't even legal. And this was a protest about a specific issue rather than protesting about the result of a vote in a democratic election which seems to be happening here.

[Flanker7]

..............................Its like Labour protesting about the tory government. We had an election. Labour didnt win. The public have spoken so instead of protesting and whinging they should put forward different policies*.

 

*my bold.

 

Conservative mindset - do anything , change anything, say anything - TO WIN.

and be in control because that's all that matters. And why? So you are in the best position to look after yourself and your tribe. Public protest is a very blunt instrument compared to the old boy network and rarely produces results.

 

So why do they do it? Because they think its right irrespective of who is likely to win. Now there's a novel thing for the right wing to contemplate. That's why the left wing will always have the moral high ground and the right will always be the nasties.

[Mister M]

Well they're not people like me. Regardless of how I voted I accept that the Tories won, be it a small, majority in the general election and dont see why we should have these protests.

 

What are they objecting too the voters that voted the tories in. Maybe they should focus their attention on actually finding policies voters will agree with.

 

Someone mentioned the Iraq war protests. Well that is different as no member of the public voted for the war in Iraq. It wasn't even legal. And this was a protest about a specific issue rather than protesting about the result of a vote in a democratic election which seems to be happening here.

 

But we don't have an elective dictatorship, people have the right to protest & that is right and proper.

[woodmally]

But we don't have an elective dictatorship, people have the right to protest & that is right and proper.

 

I'm not disputing people having the right to protest. I just don't understand why people do. It seems the "We lost the election but we will still complain anyway." Who are they objecting to the voters that didn't vote for them?

 

Also what good is it going to do? Has any of these anti-government protests achieved anything?

 

The only way it can work is if the labour party put forward an alternative and the country votes for them.

[hyper]

No, I just admire their pay rises.

But do you admire what goes into getting those payrises?

- qualifications & working for them

- responsibilities to customers, employees and legislation

- always "being at work" you can't just switch off

- possibly having risked your home as collateral in the early years

- sacrificing putting your children to be at 7pm cos you're still at work

 

the list goes on, you're just looking at the benefit - we all want the benefit with no sacrifices.

 

If you really want it, raise your butt and make it happen

[Eric Arthur]

I think that you need to look again at the proposals. From one of those affected, here's a comment upon what'll happen to pay levels:

 

I don't think that I do. I'll help you out with a slightly more authoritative source than the Guardian - the NHS Employers.

 

http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/national-negotiations/q-a-on-the-new-junior-doctor-contract-proposals

 

Here are the headlines:

 

The proposals include:

• enhancing the quality and quantity of training opportunities for junior doctors
  
• a higher basic rate, with a significant increase in basic salary
  
• proportionate payment for additional hours worked (including when on-call)
  
• unsocial hours paid at a higher rate
  
• flexible pay premia for hard-to-fill specialties
  

 

What's actually happening is that maximum 91 hour weeks will be cut to 72 hour weeks. Most people would say that is a good thing.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[drummonds]

But we don't have an elective dictatorship, people have the right to protest & that is right and proper.

 

so you won't mind the edl turning out again in rotherham

[JFKvsNixon]

I don't think that I do. I'll help you out with a slightly more authoritative source than the Guardian - the NHS Employers.

 

http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/national-negotiations/q-a-on-the-new-junior-doctor-contract-proposals

 

Here are the headlines:

 

The proposals include:

• enhancing the quality and quantity of training opportunities for junior doctors
  
• a higher basic rate, with a significant increase in basic salary
  
• proportionate payment for additional hours worked (including when on-call)
  
• unsocial hours paid at a higher rate
  
• flexible pay premia for hard-to-fill specialties
  

 

What's actually happening is that maximum 91 hour weeks will be cut to 72 hour weeks. Most people would say that is a good thing.

 

You do know it's the NHS that are making the proposal, and none of those points contradict the claims made by the junior doctor that wrote the article in the Guardian.

 

Maybe you can address the issue raised by the junior doctor?

 

 

• Under the new contract, the majority of trainees will see their pay cut by
  15%-30%.
   
  
• Despite the government saying basic pay would increase, the removal of the banding supplement – which provides pay supplements based on an overall assessment of the length and unsocial timing of duties – will lead to a significant reduction in pay despite working more unsociable hours.
   
  
• Under the new proposals, the contract will increase the number of hours (including antisocial hours) we are expected to work.
   
  
• It will impose standard working hours of 7am to 10pm Monday to Saturday, compared with the current 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.
   
  
• Safeguards to prevent doctors working excessive and dangerous hours, which were introduced in 2004 to protect patients, will be lifted.
  

 

Maybe you should approach the BMA and tell them how they've got all their calculations wrong over the new contract?

[drummonds]

You do know it's the NHS that are making the proposal, and none of those points contradict the claims made by the junior doctor that wrote the article in the Guardian.

 

Maybe you can address the issue raised by the junior doctor?

 

 

• Under the new contract, the majority of trainees will see their pay cut by
  15%-30%.
   
  
• Despite the government saying basic pay would increase, the removal of the banding supplement – which provides pay supplements based on an overall assessment of the length and unsocial timing of duties – will lead to a significant reduction in pay despite working more unsociable hours.
   
  
• Under the new proposals, the contract will increase the number of hours (including antisocial hours) we are expected to work.
   
  
• It will impose standard working hours of 7am to 10pm Monday to Saturday, compared with the current 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.
   
  
• Safeguards to prevent doctors working excessive and dangerous hours, which were introduced in 2004 to protect patients, will be lifted.
  

 

Maybe you should approach the BMA and tell them how they've got all their calculations wrong over the new contract?

 

i think if i were a junior doctor and thought i had a legitimate arguement, i would find a rather better platform to air it than alongside the spitting, throwing, banner waving, fighting, swearing, asaulting rent a mob outside the tory conference. that way decent folk might even take them seriously. as it is they just look like another member of the spitting, throwing, banner waving, fighting, swearing, asaulting rent a mob outside the tory conference.

[JFKvsNixon]

i think if i were a junior doctor and thought i had a legitimate arguement, i would find a rather better platform to air it than alongside the spitting, throwing, banner waving, fighting, swearing, asaulting rent a mob outside the tory conference. that way decent folk might even take them seriously. as it is they just look like another member of the spitting, throwing, banner waving, fighting, swearing, asaulting rent a mob outside the tory conference.

 

Would you seriously describe this image as being like a member of the afore mentioned spitting, throwing, banner waving, fighting, swearing, asaulting rent a mob?