news & politics:discussion

[lost]

Anyone actually own an ID Buzz? Does it suffer from the same software problems as the ID3?

[squirrelarmy]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Those scary American XL bullyboys getting banned. I guess that means they will all get destroyed?

illegal to breed. 

Must be neutered and then restrained and muzzled at all times. 

Has to be fully registered and owning such an animal becomes a paperwork nightmare. 

Any owner failing to comply faces criminal action. 

They’ll soon become obsolete as any animals seen in public will be seized so they will no longer be a “well ‘ard” fashion accessory 

[Nobody Interesting]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Nice peaceful moderate protests...the disruptive violent stuff delayed things. (Devil's advocating here ..or trolling ..)

Quite the opposite - until the extreme stuff those in power took no notice at all and simply dismissed the protests telling their husbands to find more work for them to do at home.

I really do recommend studying how it all happened in the UK, you will be amazed by some of it.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Quite the opposite - until the extreme stuff those in power took no notice at all and simply dismissed the protests telling their husbands to find more work for them to do at home.

I really do recommend studying how it all happened in the UK, you will be amazed by some of it.

https://youtu.be/LmPceorbu8s?si=lIxQwqheAUVcd0em

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

https://youtu.be/LmPceorbu8s?si=lIxQwqheAUVcd0em

I do love a bit of Cunk

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Quite the opposite - until the extreme stuff those in power took no notice at all and simply dismissed the protests telling their husbands to find more work for them to do at home.

I really do recommend studying how it all happened in the UK, you will be amazed by some of it.

Many suffragists at the time, and some historians since, have argued that the actions of the militant suffragettes damaged their cause.^[78] Opponents at the time saw evidence that women were too emotional and could not think as logically as men

Suffragette - Wikipedia

 

The overall effect of the suffragette militancy, however, was to set back the cause of women's suffrage. For women to gain the right to vote it was necessary to demonstrate that they had public opinion on their side, to build and consolidate a parliamentary majority in favour of women's suffrage and to persuade or pressure the government to introduce its own franchise reform. None of these objectives was achieved.

Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

Militant suffragettes forced the public to think about votes for women. But their violent actions were used by opponents to justify withholding votes from women.

In 1918 the Representation of the People Act extended the vote to all men over 21, and to some groups of women over 30. However, this was not simply a reward for the vast sacrifice that women had made for the war effort. Some historians have suggested the government intended these women to be a 'moderating' influence on radical younger male voters. It had the added advantage of taking the heat out of the female suffrage movement.

Yet more than half of women still did not have a say in electing their government. Moderate campaigning would continue until 1928 when women were finally granted the vote on equal terms to men.

Did the suffragettes win women the vote? - BBC Teach

[Nobody Interesting]

Not sure if it has been mentioned in all the is GF green stuff...........

but if those people, and celebs, were not there then they would be somewhere doing something and so the how much CO2 thing has to take that into account as well.

We have not done GF since 2019 (hope to be back next year) but have instead been away doing other things so have actually driven more and probably eaten more too cos cake is lush.

The only way to really look at any 'is it making too much CO2' arguement is to remove the people who attend as they are an unknown quantity and will all be doing something else instead.

Personally I would rather have festivals that can educate people than piles of tat at Xmas that soon ends up in landfill

[steviewevie]

I guess they could have Glastonbury without anyone there.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Many suffragists at the time, and some historians since, have argued that the actions of the militant suffragettes damaged their cause.^[78] Opponents at the time saw evidence that women were too emotional and could not think as logically as men

Suffragette - Wikipedia

 

The overall effect of the suffragette militancy, however, was to set back the cause of women's suffrage. For women to gain the right to vote it was necessary to demonstrate that they had public opinion on their side, to build and consolidate a parliamentary majority in favour of women's suffrage and to persuade or pressure the government to introduce its own franchise reform. None of these objectives was achieved.

Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

Militant suffragettes forced the public to think about votes for women. But their violent actions were used by opponents to justify withholding votes from women.

In 1918 the Representation of the People Act extended the vote to all men over 21, and to some groups of women over 30. However, this was not simply a reward for the vast sacrifice that women had made for the war effort. Some historians have suggested the government intended these women to be a 'moderating' influence on radical younger male voters. It had the added advantage of taking the heat out of the female suffrage movement.

Yet more than half of women still did not have a say in electing their government. Moderate campaigning would continue until 1928 when women were finally granted the vote on equal terms to men.

Did the suffragettes win women the vote? - BBC Teach

When I say study I mean really study - not Wikipedia as that is often as bias as some media outlets.

Look at the archives from Parliamnent, that will show you lots................... and remember that in the 1920's the public only knew what the newspapers printed.......................... so what the Mail wrote was even more likely to make opinion change as there was no other method................... and those papers were often owned by MP's or their families too.

Persoanlly I think listening to relatives of those who took part will teach you a whole lot more.

I studied it at school as part of history and sociology - my eyes were opened lots.

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

illegal to breed. 

Must be neutered and then restrained and muzzled at all times. 

Has to be fully registered and owning such an animal becomes a paperwork nightmare. 

Any owner failing to comply faces criminal action. 

They’ll soon become obsolete as any animals seen in public will be seized so they will no longer be a “well ‘ard” fashion accessory 

some bloke was killed by two of them yesterday. Kin'ell.

[squirrelarmy]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

some bloke was killed by two of them yesterday. Kin'ell.

The latest in a regular increase of attacks by those animals. Think the latest incident being outside a school has finally forced the government to spring into action. There’s been a huge demand for a ban on these creatures ever since the first attack hit the headlines. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

When I say study I mean really study - not Wikipedia as that is often as bias as some media outlets.

Look at the archives from Parliamnent, that will show you lots................... and remember that in the 1920's the public only knew what the newspapers printed.......................... so what the Mail wrote was even more likely to make opinion change as there was no other method................... and those papers were often owned by MP's or their families too.

Persoanlly I think listening to relatives of those who took part will teach you a whole lot more.

I studied it at school as part of history and sociology - my eyes were opened lots.

Ok, I don't have any sufragette relatives...and I am not going to trawl through some archives...so I will rely on wikipedia and bbc. I don't think it is clear cut whether their disruptive/violent actions helped or hindered, that's all. It's like IRA bombs led to the Good Friday Agreement...you could argue this is true and so is justified?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

The latest in a regular increase of attacks by those animals. Think the latest incident being outside a school has finally forced the government to spring into action. There’s been a huge demand for a ban on these creatures ever since the first attack hit the headlines. 

Personally I think they should ban staffies too...and pretty much any of these silly powerful dogs with massive gobs.

[cellar]

3 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

The majority of countries did not do votes for women (suffrage) until after WW2.

Even with suffrage the UK was dragged kicking and screaming to equal votes and it took 10 years of yet motre protest to actually get near it (1928)

Sorry, nit-picking mode - suffrage isn't votes for women. Suffrage is just rights to vote. The fights that came before giving women the right to vote were to give men who didn't own property the right to vote. So that's why people say "women's suffrage" and why they are called suffragettes.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

...and pretty much any of these silly powerful dogs with massive gobs.

Sounds like my ex.

[stuie]

55 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think the next step could be stopping camper vans from coming as they can't be good for emissions.

That's not happening! 

52 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Can't see it personally.

1. Too dictatorial

2. They'd lose loads of money at £150 (?) per CV ticket

3. The crew would riot

4. There's plenty of other festivals that would appreciate the custom of the van crews instead. 

[Nobody Interesting]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok, I don't have any sufragette relatives...and I am not going to trawl through some archives...so I will rely on wikipedia and bbc. I don't think it is clear cut whether their disruptive/violent actions helped or hindered, that's all. It's like IRA bombs led to the Good Friday Agreement...you could argue this is true and so is justified?

Here are some lovely links to start you off and a quote from someone who has spent decades studying the movement........ and one little point from me...... if protest and violent protest did not work then why are governments so keen to ban it? It really is a very intersting subject that shows how much the 'establishment' at the time wanted nothing to change so they could carry on doing things in ways that suited themselves  -so bugger all has really changed except we all get to vote every now and again.
 

It’s conveniently forgotten – even by their biggest admirers – that the suffragette movement is the only mass movement in British history since the Luddites to espouse violence as both a legitimate and necessary tactic. It was this preparedness not to compromise or play by the rules that kept the issue of women’s suffrage so high up the agenda and, arguably, it was only the outbreak of world war that delayed a successful conclusion.

Is it fair to suggest that the largely non-violent (and male-dominated?) movements of the last 200 hundred years, from the Chartists and the 1926 general strike to the trade union struggles of the 70s and 80s, might have been more likely to succeed had they adopted some of the suffragettes’ determination, bravery even, and shed their law-abiding timidity? To answer the call of the poet Shelley, to “Rise like lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number”, sometimes a few windows have to get broken.

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy

https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/reform-violence-struggle-suffrage/

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Here are some lovely links to start you off and a quote from someone who has spent decades studying the movement........ and one little point from me...... if protest and violent protest did not work then why are governments so keen to ban it? It really is a very intersting subject that shows how much the 'establishment' at the time wanted nothing to change so they could carry on doing things in ways that suited themselves  -so bugger all has really changed except we all get to vote every now and again.
 

It’s conveniently forgotten – even by their biggest admirers – that the suffragette movement is the only mass movement in British history since the Luddites to espouse violence as both a legitimate and necessary tactic. It was this preparedness not to compromise or play by the rules that kept the issue of women’s suffrage so high up the agenda and, arguably, it was only the outbreak of world war that delayed a successful conclusion.

Is it fair to suggest that the largely non-violent (and male-dominated?) movements of the last 200 hundred years, from the Chartists and the 1926 general strike to the trade union struggles of the 70s and 80s, might have been more likely to succeed had they adopted some of the suffragettes’ determination, bravery even, and shed their law-abiding timidity? To answer the call of the poet Shelley, to “Rise like lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number”, sometimes a few windows have to get broken.

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy

https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/reform-violence-struggle-suffrage/

ok, so they stopped with the violence in 1914, and after war they started to give some woman the vote....seen argued this was pay back for sacrifices during the war, because they had also given suffrage to more men...but yes also because they didn't want the violence from militant protests to start up again. But between 1918 and 1928 violent protests stopped?

This article is basically advocating violent protests, or direct action I guess is a nicer way of putting it. Does that go for anti immigrant protests etc? And governments outlaw violent protests because they're violent, not because they may or may not work.

And votes for women were happening everywhere. Australia had already done it. Some states in USA had done it until whole country did (white only of course). Various European countries had done it, and many others did around same time as UK. 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

ok, so they stopped with the violence in 1914, and after war they started to give some woman the vote....seen argued this was pay back for sacrifices during the war, because they had also given suffrage to more men...but yes also because they didn't want the violence from militant protests to start up again. But between 1918 and 1928 violent protests stopped?

This article is basically advocating violent protests, or direct action I guess is a nicer way of putting it. Does that go for anti immigrant protests etc? And governments outlaw violent protests because they're violent, not because they may or may not work.

And votes for women were happening everywhere. Australia had already done it. Some states in USA had done it until whole country did (white only of course). Various European countries had done it, and many others did around same time as UK. 

You read the entirity of both links at the bottom which are not connected to the quote?

 

and as I said earlier, the majority of countries did not given votes for women until after WW2 and certainly were not happening everywhere as you say. Far from it.

[zahidf]

Big political scoop tomorrow at 3pm apparently, with a secret Channel 4 despatches programme about it

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Big political scoop tomorrow at 3pm apparently, with a secret Channel 4 despatches programme about it

The government are going to resign on mass and be replaced by non partizan experts?

[Nobody Interesting]

12 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok, so they stopped with the violence in 1914, and after war they started to give some woman the vote....seen argued this was pay back for sacrifices during the war, because they had also given suffrage to more men...but yes also because they didn't want the violence from militant protests to start up again. But between 1918 and 1928 violent protests stopped?

This article is basically advocating violent protests, or direct action I guess is a nicer way of putting it. Does that go for anti immigrant protests etc? And governments outlaw violent protests because they're violent, not because they may or may not work.

And votes for women were happening everywhere. Australia had already done it. Some states in USA had done it until whole country did (white only of course). Various European countries had done it, and many others did around same time as UK. 

I could add even more links for you not to read but instead I shall just give you the last 2 paragraphs from a study on the subject:

 

"It is impossible to separate later extreme actions from the suffragettes’ considerable legacy. Without this legacy, it is impossible to know how long women in Britain would have had to wait.

French women for instance waited until 1944. Switzerland finally let women have their say in 1971. In Portugal, it was 1976."

[Nobody Interesting]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Big political scoop tomorrow at 3pm apparently, with a secret Channel 4 despatches programme about it

Got  a source for it please?

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

To be fair to Glastonbury they are making year on year improvements and unless we sit at home doing absolutely nothing we are still having some impact … they ultimately can’t control the artists arriving by private jet / helicopter but they can ask and I suspect this will be on a list somewhere .  they need to get to shambala levels but it’s a very different scale than Glastonbury . Room for improvement but it’s not going to happen overnight 

i think its worth recognising the part Glastonbury has played over several decades with educating thousands of people about green issues and how to lessen their own impact ( I decided to stop flying as a result of a green field talk i heard in about 1990.) and getting people mentally ready to accept green changes.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I could add even more links for you not to read but instead I shall just give you the last 2 paragraphs from a study on the subject:

 

"It is impossible to separate later extreme actions from the suffragettes’ considerable legacy. Without this legacy, it is impossible to know how long women in Britain would have had to wait.

French women for instance waited until 1944. Switzerland finally let women have their say in 1971. In Portugal, it was 1976."

i reckon the uk would have given women the vote in the 1920's cos it was an idea who's time had come.