I made no comment as to the value of their grievance, and indeed it may be valid, as I said.
But, this kind of approach really works where the person "blamed" for it by the general public is not the protestor, but rather the person or organisation who has it within their ability to give the protestor what he wishes.
The hope being, clearly, that the general public will be significantly aroused by the antics of the men, that they will demand of the government, who would be seen as to blame for the trials encountered by the traveller, that the situation is resolved instantly by granting the protestor what he wishes.
Unfortunately this is not working and the general public is blaming the protestor, this ensuring that the behaviour they demand from the government is increasingly that of insisting on retribution against the protestor who is seen as responsible for the travellers difficulties.
|
sadly history teaches that those who ask politely and use good honest peaceful democratic processes hardly ever win big shifts of policy
from the suffragettes, via the poll tax, and including various terror groups throughout the world
the best answer to this problem is not to blame those who are forced to act, but rather to ask how we can improve the democratic process so that there are better ways for the disposed to contribute their point of view
parliament is still terribly unrepresentative of real society out there, and many small pressure groups can manipulate the situation and impose their ways (think anti-car brigade for one)
tough one this, but really with the politically correct media dominated by the same one or two types of people, and the political process being the way it is
I just wish we could all live in peace and harmony a lot better
|
the best answer to this problem is not to blame those who are forced to act, but rather to ask how we can improve the democratic process so that there are better ways for the disposed to contribute their point of view
Agree wholeheartedly, but as Mark said, the choice of action is all but guaranteed to alienate the public to this cause. Target the MPs, not the population. That, I can assure you, will get support.
|
so youre accepting that those with PR skills and friends in the press should have more say than ordinary folk with different skills?
dont think a couple of thousand ordinary blokes writing to their MP's will make 2penth of difference I'm afraid
the views of those with limited access to the chattering classes are very under represented at the moment
|
so youre accepting that those with PR skills and friends in the press should have more say than ordinary folk with different skills?
No, far from it. Just that action could be better targetted.
dont think a couple of thousand ordinary blokes writing to their MP's will make 2penth of difference I'm afraid
Now did I say anything about writing? You'll note the use of the word "Target" in my earlier post.
the views of those with limited access to the chattering classes are very under represented at the moment
Agreed, hence my view that more focussed "Action" is needed. I have a daughter by my first wife and regularly walk the tightrope of access vs. maintenance payments. Everything is on my ex's side. If I were to stop maintenance (which I would never do) I would have an attachment of earnings in a flash. Were my ex to deny me reasonable access to my daughter I would have to walk on hot coals to the moon and back before anyone made any halfway sensible attempt to enforce an access agreement (as if such a thing can be enforced without alienating the child).
Anyway, we digress. I think we started on the subject of the M25?
:o)
No Do$h - Alfa-driving Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Being a father that has done nothing wrong and found that my ex-wife has moved my children to an unknown (to me) address, I completely sympathise with the Fathers For Justice groups actions.
I know they affect people badly, but this issue has been swept under the carpet for too long.
The court system is completely useless and geared against responsible fathers.
I have no idea where my kids are and I am having to go through hoops to find out via the court system, with the final kick in the teeth being that I stopped paying, saying I would pay once I knew where they were and I was hauled up in front of the court with threats of prison within a month. My side of the case will not reach court for months and even if I find where they live, access will be dependent on my ex's whim on the day.
I am a law abiding citizen, but this system is a disgrace. If it takes the M25 to repeatedly grind to a halt before people listen then so be it.
Finally, sorry my post is a bit of a rant, but think how you would feel if you were just squeezed for cash and your children were taken away for no reason and the law did not help you.
|
I'm about to lock this thread for not being motoring, but just before I do;
>>but think how you would feel if you were just squeezed for cash and your children were taken away for no reason and the law did not help you.
I cannot even begin to imagine. I would probably do anything, and sod the inconvenience to anyone else.
However, that was not my point. My point was that their activities are somewhere between ineffectual and negative.
It can be likened to strikes in the past;
It matters not who is wrong. It matters not who is reasonable; perception and emotional opinion is all. Effeciveness occurs when you manage to get public opinion on your side and directed against the people who you wish to change.
So, if dangling from bridges annoys every driver in the kingdom, then that's ok - provided that those annoyed drivers blame the government for not fixing it.
However, if the general public blame you for doing it, then you've failed.
And in reality it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, your target should be to make the general public extremely annoyed with the government for not fixing the situation. Any other effect will work against you.
I'll give this thread the rest of the day and then lock it.
slike this
|
|
so youre accepting that those with PR skills and friends in the press should have more say than ordinary folk with different skills?
Actually, F4J have some advertising people behind them. Just not very bright ones -- good tactics, lousy strategy.
dont think a couple of thousand ordinary blokes writing to their MP's will make 2penth of difference I'm afraid
Maybe, though you'd be surprised how effective that can be. But f4J's disruption of the Commons chamber has to be one of the biggest own goals ever. Plugging straight into all the security paranoia was not going to help their cause.
|
>f4J's disruption of the Commons chamber has to be one of the >biggest own goals ever. Plugging straight into all the security
>paranoia was not going to help their cause.
Whereas conversely, the invasion of the Commons by the pro-hunting chaps seemsto have gained them a lot of (largely) positive publicity. The mistake of F4J was to use blue powder. Someone on the floor of the House would have worked wonders. Imagine every father in this situation pitching up and demanding to see their MP - which is, I think, where Mark came in.
Anyway, back to cars. I want a Jag for Christmas.
O
|
|
I want a Daimler Double Six...sucker for punishment!
|
daimler double six often is a jag with a different badge and a few grand more on the bill, dont believe me? ask a dealer, they often leave the factory with both badges in the boot
|
|
No way! Another dream shattered.....
|
|
And a diffrent radiator grille surely?
|
|
I am sure there is an ex high profile cabinet member who might be interested in chairing their group!
|
|
I assume you dont mean "two daimler double 6" Prescot?
|
|
Surely the ex Home Secretary.
|
It had different rear seat style also. Two seats as opposed to a bench and a chrome stripe along the side.
Dream re-ignited thanks to an old car brochure.
Having said that a garage mate of mine, reckins that the plugs take 2 hours to change. :(
|
|
|
|
Thommo,
I for one totally agree with you and the F4J campaign. My brother found out last year( by phone) whilst he was in the Gulf that his now ex wife had found someone else. He now has to go through hoops to see his kids and why, cause she wanted someone else ( whom she now no longer is with)
Divorced fathers now get shafted by their ex wifes, lawyers and the courts whom seem to bendover backwards to the wives whims and decree that Fathers have no rights.
How many times do we hear about Dads not having their children when they are supposed to because "little johnny's" got a cold etc.
IMHO the best way ahead, is to get the ex wives back in front of the judge to answer for her decision's to not allow the father to see his children when they agreed to it in the divorce agreement.
|
|
|
|
