Looney ? A lot of a prick

[Kalimantan Gull]

I must admit I was looking forward to a good discussions on the use of referenda (like the Swiss model) as opposed to having all decisions taken by a parliament. In other words is democracy about what the people want or what the political elite want? Should we be allowed a say on every important issue or should we just vote once every five years for a broad package of policies (some of which you might not like and the ones you do like the government might renege on) and then shut the f*** up for another five years? In between elections our political input is simply to protest impotently (like people did against the Iraq war). One result of that is that people then treat local elections as glorified popularity polls for the government in Westminster instread of voting on local issues.

It sounds like I'm in favour of government by referenda - but then you do get decisons like the Swiss one and the almost certain knowledge that we'd have capital punishment in Britain if that were put to the vote and you realise that the elite's contempt for the intelligence and wishes of the general public can occasionaly be beneficial.

So I dunno. The general view of the political classes is that referenda are 'bad' partly because the public can't be trusted - a bit like el pres doesn't trust the surviving members of NSC.

Referenda by themselves are not a bad thing, the people have a chance to vote on important issues (although I'm surprised that minarets are considered such as important issue in Switzerland, but I digress). However, if referenda are few and far between they ultimately become a referendum on the government, especially if the government takes a stand. If its your first chance to vote for 3 or 4 years then an unpopular government takes the hit, whatever the merits of the issues under consideration. Its why local government elections should really take place at the same time as general elections, so that we can vote separately on local issues, not use the occasion as a chance to hit out at the government,

 

[seagull_special]

Thank you. I see that.

Are the majority on here in favour of freedom of opinion, though?

If someone starts a discussion board and allows people to discuss varied topics, they should expect controversy. Doesn't it follow that they should defend the rights of members to post what they feel?

The problem is that this site is run by real people who run the risk of prosecution if these draconian laws are even implied to be breached which is an absolute travesty, putting the responsibility for posts on this site on the shoulders of Bozza or any individual is wrong. if a child is naughty at school, is the school closed down? of course not. This is a forum for peoples opinions, it is what makes it viable and vibrant. It is very well balanced with a few idiots on both sides of the political spectrum and the majority in the middle. the moderators do an important job and weed out the overly offensive and aggressive and self regulate very well. there is a possibility that the person who made the complaint to the police was not even a registered user and was just looking to cause trouble or bang their little political drum and maybe the answer is only let people who are registered view the site. at the end of the day we are all as individuals responsible for our actions and rightly so and have to take the consequences. It does feel as if NSC has been neutered and hopefully in the future certain topics will not be banned from discussion.

 

[Brovion]

Referenda by themselves are not a bad thing, the people have a chance to vote on important issues (although I'm surprised that minarets are considered such as important issue in Switzerland, but I digress). However, if referenda are few and far between they ultimately become a referendum on the government, especially if the government takes a stand. If its your first chance to vote for 3 or 4 years then an unpopular government takes the hit, whatever the merits of the issues under consideration. Its why local government elections should really take place at the same time as general elections, so that we can vote separately on local issues, not use the occasion as a chance to hit out at the government,

What about the idea of putting issues on the ballot? So when you cast your vote in the next election you might also be asked to express your preference on, say, adopting the Euro. That way cross-party issues can be divorced from the usual divisions of party politics.

As I say it's not something on which I've got a hard and fast opinion which is why I'm interested in what other people think.

EDIT: Maybe a discussion for another day. This thread isn't really about that.

 

[herbicide]

...if a child is naughty at school, is the school closed down? of course not.

The way I understood it, Bozza was going to close the forum down under threat of prosecution. That's different to the Police closing it down.

 

[DerbyGull]

This is sad news coming out of switzerland and will only alienate muslims further in the west. I hope it never happens here. Why are they always the scapegoats, they're not in our towns every weekend causing alcohol related violence.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

What about the idea of putting issues on the ballot? So when you cast your vote in the next election you might also be asked to express your preference on, say, adopting the Euro. That way cross-party issues can be divorced from the usual divisions of party politics.

As I say it's not something on which I've got a hard and fast opinion which is why I'm interested in what other people think.

Thats what they do for states' issues in the US. Basically, if the state passes a law, if enough people sign a ballot to overturn that law it goes to a referendum. The result of that is virtually binding, although not quite.

The problem with it is that it tends to be special-interest groups putting issues forward so that most referenda are on things like gay marriage and abortion. Also, in California I think they once voted to overturn a tax AND commit to more spending on infrastructure or something, crippling the state's budget in one fell swoop.

Big question is whether complete majority rule is desired or whether minority rights should be respected. and by minority I don't only mean skin colours or races or religions, I mean things like 'cyclists' or 'hunters' or 'languages'. The majority could happily vote to ban welsh if they were so inclined, or perhaps riled by some clever orator, but is that really what a democracy should be doing? The more referenda you have the more you risk hurting minority groups.

If governments put issues on the ballot, I guess OK but difficult what to do with result if they are no longer the government after the election and the voted on issue is against the policy of the incoming government. There is something to like about that though, for example we could vote out Labour but ALSO vote to keep current levels of health spending, for example.

 

[El Presidente]

Thank you. I see that.

Are the majority on here in favour of freedom of opinion, though?

If someone starts a discussion board and allows people to discuss varied topics, they should expect controversy. Doesn't it follow that they should defend the rights of members to post what they feel?

I believe the majority do share that view.

However if ONE person decides to stir things up by making a (mischeivous) complaint to the police, and the police investigate, then there are implications........and consequences.

 

[El Presidente]

The way I understood it, Bozza was going to close the forum down under threat of prosecution. That's different to the Police closing it down.

Correct. But why should Bozza have to have the stress of dealing with all of this?

 

[Gwylan]

Thats what they do for states' issues in the US. Basically, if the state passes a law, if enough people sign a ballot to overturn that law it goes to a referendum. The result of that is virtually binding, although not quite.

The problem with it is that it tends to be special-interest groups putting issues forward so that most referenda are on things like gay marriage and abortion. Also, in California I think they once voted to overturn a tax AND commit to more spending on infrastructure or something, crippling the state's budget in one fell swoop.

Big question is whether complete majority rule is desired or whether minority rights should be respected. and by minority I don't only mean skin colours or races or religions, I mean things like 'cyclists' or 'hunters' or 'languages'. The majority could happily vote to ban welsh if they were so inclined, or perhaps riled by some clever orator, but is that really what a democracy should be doing? The more referenda you have the more you risk hurting minority groups.

If governments put issues on the ballot, I guess OK but difficult what to do with result if they are no longer the government after the election and the voted on issue is against the policy of the incoming government. There is something to like about that though, for example we could vote out Labour but ALSO vote to keep current levels of health spending, for example.

I think Brovion raises an interesting point and a discussion of the effectiveness of referenda is well worth having.

Personally speaking, I'm not in favour of them. You might as well do away with governments entirely and have countries/states etc run by bureaucrats' rubber-stamping of referenda decisions. My objection to the EU is the way that bureaucrats appear to hold sway over elected representatives, I don't want to see that model carried over into other governments too.

I also think the wisdom of crowds does lead to poor decisions. KG raises some interesting possibilities where a referendum decision is decidedly not the right one. For example, it's perfectly possible that successive UK referenda could see the reduction of income tax, reduction of sales taxes, longer prison sentences for offenders and more equipment for the troops in Afghanistan - two of which would reduce income, two would increase expenditure and the net effect would bankrupt the country - is that something that we'd want to do.

And what if a referendum voted to force Muslims to wear a yellow crescent about their persons at all times (and TBH, I think that if put to a vote, such a measure could well succeed). Would that really be something that we'd want to see enshrined in UK law?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

And what if a referendum voted to force Muslims to wear a yellow crescent about their persons at all times (and TBH, I think that if put to a vote, such a measure could well succeed). Would that really be something that we'd want to see enshrined in UK law?

*imagines a few on here stroking their chins in a thoughtful manner*

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Oh and well done Questions for retracting the title thread.

 

[herbicide]

Correct. But why should Bozza have to have the stress of dealing with all of this?

I thought he started the forum? Sorry if I am wrong. I am not sure of the political heirarchy here.

 

[The Ringleader]

I thought he started the forum? Sorry if I am wrong. I am not sure of the political heirarchy here.

Put it this way, You start a forum for other peoples enjoyment. You put your time and money into it. You see it gradually slide it a shit heap (which NSC is accoarding to the veterans) Then one day you have the police warning you about the stuff thats being said on YOUR site, would you have kept it open at all or do you think you would just carry on and run the risk of getting in trouble through no fault of your own? Bozza has found the middle ground and i'm thankful that he puts up with the shit that goes on.

 

[herbicide]

Put it this way, You start a forum for other peoples enjoyment. You put your time and money into it. You see it gradually slide it a shit heap (which NSC is accoarding to the veterans) Then one day you have the police warning you about the stuff thats being said on YOUR site, would you have kept it open at all or do you think you would just carry on and run the risk of getting in trouble through no fault of your own? Bozza has found the middle ground and i'm thankful that he puts up with the shit that goes on.

Fair enough. Not sure that's how we won the War though.

 

[Bozza]

Put it this way, You start a forum for other peoples enjoyment. You put your time and money into it. You see it gradually slide it a shit heap (which NSC is accoarding to the veterans) Then one day you have the police warning you about the stuff thats being said on YOUR site, would you have kept it open at all or do you think you would just carry on and run the risk of getting in trouble through no fault of your own? Bozza has found the middle ground and i'm thankful that he puts up with the shit that goes on.

Thanks - a reasonable summary.

NSC doesn't take up any of my cash any more, although it's fair to say it used to cost me a fair bit a few years back. The board is self-supporting now - long may it continue.

But it does take up time, and I have no issue with that. If anything I'd like to be able to spend more time on it but that's not been possible recently.

I took NSC on because I felt it was very important for the greater good of the club most of us support, and it is largely a fun spare-time pursuit. It does come with some pain however - I probably average one legal threat a month but most can be easily brushed aside. But when the police make explicit threats that could impact me personally and/or my family then I have to say 'enough is enough', and I would imagine most on here, despite their bravado, would do the same if in my shoes.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem is ...

nothing wrong there, but real the underlying problem is people moan and bitch about having a subject "censored" on a forum, but dont spend the time to actually raise the issue where it matters, with their MP and other authorities. If, as suggested, the police are monitoring websites like this one for dicussion on sensitive subjects, then they have a prioritisation issue; if the "PC" brigade in the country has gone too far, let your MPs and councillors know of the concern. moaning here will do sweet fa.

 

[User removed 4]

This is sad news coming out of switzerland and will only alienate muslims further in the west. I hope it never happens here. Why are they always the scapegoats, they're not in our towns every weekend causing alcohol related violence.

edited due to the act it will cause the thread to be locked, and piss off the mods !!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Fair enough. Not sure that's how we won the War though.

I really shouldn't laugh at anything coming from a palace fan, but great line

 

[seagull_special]

nothing wrong there, but real the underlying problem is people moan and bitch about having a subject "censored" on a forum, but dont spend the time to actually raise the issue where it matters, with their MP and other authorities. If, as suggested, the police are monitoring websites like this one for dicussion on sensitive subjects, then they have a prioritisation issue; if the "PC" brigade in the country has gone too far, let your MPs and councillors know of the concern. moaning here will do sweet fa.

Censorship has its place and anything that incites racial or any type of violence should be assessed. You wouldn't want paedophiles spreading their poison under the guise of freedom of speech would you? as I said the moderators are pretty good at self regulating the site and the police action was not necessarely a question of monitoring but in response to a specific complaint. unfortunately my local MP is Norman Baker and if I said what I think of him I would be facing a very long ban and police action. What other authorities are there and in reality what good do you think it would do. Its the politicians who set the agenda and if they are prepared to go to war against mass opposition why would they listen to the great unwashed on this subject

 

[portlock seagull]

O do give it a rest please.

What's wrong with this being a forum to discuss everthing other than race, religion and sexist issues? If you can't understand the MODs decision to close or remove threads of that nature then frankly, you're just a wee bit thick after all the warnings / explanations cited.

Go find a more appropriate website where people are really interested in such arguments and leave NSC to more football related topics. Its primary purpose is all things Albion related you know?