A government elected to absolute power by 23% of those entitled to vote, legislates that just to go on strike will require the support of 40% of those entitled to vote.
Update
I find further explanation is necessary. The government proposal is that not only must a majority of those voting cast their ballot in favour of a strike (which is democracy), but in addition that the number voting for the strike must also amount to 40% of those who were eligible to vote. Yet we have no such provision in a general election, where not only did the government get only 37% of those who did vote, it received under a quarter of the votes of those who were eligible to vote. the government is asking for a high
The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man and a slave. Anybody who believes that the British economy has a problem with too many workers’ rights is very far right indeed. The gap between rich and poor had expanded massively in both private and public sectors, as the gap between workers’ pay and bosses’ pay grows ever wider.
In fact the first focus of the Tory government is on removing rights that protect ordinary people from their betters, be they human rights or employment rights.
Jimmy Giro: ” …the feminists and sodomites, who make up most of the PUBLIC sector workforce;” is a wonderful way to generate publicity. The boy done well; and your double-first in physics and chemistry is an achievement which I applaud. But it’s not a double-first in common sense, logic or sympathy with those who have not reached double-first physics or chemistry self-satisfied sainthood. Beware of spending too much time in front of the mirror admiring your reflection. Maybe your lipstick is a bit smudged.
@ Fedup:
backpedaling on the anti IMMIGRANT
Not at all. But there’s no point in discussing anything with a foul-mouthed pea-brain such as yourself.
But it would be interesting to know: are you, an immigrant like me, or just a self-hating Brit?
@ Iain Orr
I have no sympathy with those who support death cults such as socialism or feminism. They both show the symptoms of anti-empathy, as they engage debate by ad hominem, then complain of individuals who defend their individuality against the socialist ‘borg’ mind set.
I am not like you; and that is anathema to those stuck in a socialist religion, with the ‘equality’ mantra.
Nature is spontaneous, therefore only estimable. Whereas socialism is designed, therefore totally predictable.
I have no sympathy with those who support death cults such as socialism or feminism.
Clearly exhibiting
the symptoms of anti-empathy
etc.
You’re
http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-18-at-18.30.24.png
aren’t you?
@ Ba’al Zevul
Sorry, FireFox thinks you’re link is dodgy.
Describe the picture, with your empathic socialist skills.
“http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-18-at-18.30.24.png”
Remove quotes and copy that into the address bar, physics genius.
Now that’s clever. The site changed ‘http to ‘https’ even in quotes. Ok, remove quotes and ‘s’ from ‘https’ in the address bar, physics genius…
Are you a dispossessed Nigerian Prince?
If so, I claim my £5,000,000… Just post up your bank details, and I’ll get a little lab technician to sort it out for you.
Pot kettle, heheheheheh
This specimen that has been banging on his anti IMMIGRANT drum is not a self hating immigrant, but I am a self hating Brit!!! Now that is taking the piss.
This oh so font of wisdom cannot distinguish his arse from his elbow, and he is talking logic. An Immigrant with an attitude who hates the other immigrants, now that is logical.
The “genocide of the white race” is ever so glacially slow affording the kinds of this specimen to go on spewing shite, hate, venom and bile all in the “defense” of the “white race” and it is verily convinced that it can thinketh for itself! Others have no brains and by accident if they do, it is the size of a pea, well what do you know?
Is stated to which the retort comes;
Conclusion;
This individual has no idea about the Internet, and is merely an inadequate consumer, with a woefully inadequate grasp of what he/she is doing on the Internet.
Way forward;
Call the Internet Police
CanSpeccy
14/05/2015 1:24am
[CanSpeccy 1]: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “man” and “Man” as “A human being of either sex; a person…”
[JSD 1]: Exactly. That definition is a discriminatory one, and the day it is wholly eliminated from dictionaries and from human consciousness will be a good day for the language and for society. It’s inaccurate. Fifty per cent of the human race (virtually) is not comprised of men. It is remarkable that you cannot see this. Reverse it. Let’s take a look at Craig’s sentence:
[CanSpeccy 2]: Of course the definition is not discriminatory.
[JSD 2]: Of course the definition is discriminatory. “Dog”, “dog”, and “bitch”, or “duck”, “duck”, and “drake”, are discriminatory in a way that “horse”, “mare”, and “stallion” are not. They favour the word used to describe one sex over the word used to describe the other sex when describing the species collectively. Exactly the same is true of “man”, “man”, and “woman”. It doesn’t matter to dogs or ducks. It does to humans.
[CanSpeccy 2]: Depending on context, “man” is inclusive: (man embraces woman), or it refers to an adult male.
[JSD 2]: Yes, I can see that in certain contexts “man” is used to embrace “woman”. Why on earth should it be? A woman is not a man. The usage is factually wrong, and therefore should be replaced by a gender-neutral term.
[CanSpeccy 2]: If you cannot distinguish between homonyms by context,
[JSD 2]: “Man” here is a polyseme, not a homonym.
[CanSpeccy 2]: you must find language very confusing.
[JSD 2]: Not so much confusing, as irritating. Take Craig’s phrase again.
“The right to withdraw your labour is the difference between a free man and a slave.”
That is obviously going to stick out like a clunking great clanger to a woman, as it plainly did to Becky Cohen. Are you honestly telling me that she is wrong to assert that a gender-neutral word would have been more appropriate in that circumstance? Ridiculous.
[JSD 1]: Probably, if every single time you were referred to in a collective way you were referred to as “woman”, you would begin to see that the matter is not silly and pointless at all.
[CanSpeccy 2]: Obviously “woman” does not embrace man since a “woman” is a member of mankind with a womb.
[JSD 2]: I’m honestly not sure if you are trying to be facetious. You might as well say that a “man” is a member of the species with a penis. In which case, “man” does not embrace “woman” either. Your objection to being referred to as a “woman” is that it is factually incorrect. Precisely the same argument can be made by a woman being referred to as a “man”. If you would be uncomfortable being referred to as a “woman” then you should grant the same right in reverse to a woman, as Becky Cohen’s comments underline.
Kind regards,
John
@ Fedup
Ad hominem tu quoque
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjC3ycS_2js
Yes, John S-D, I understand that control of the language is essential to those like yourself who engage in the political correctness racket, but talking total bollocks doesn’t constitute control of the language.
CanSpeccy
17/05/2015 1:29am
Well, you’re the expert: I defer to your superior skill at talking total bollocks.
J
JSD, I think you’re being just a little patronising of women. But not of children who you readily seem to dispense with in your count of mankind? I wonder what the matronly Mary, as a woman, makes of all this. Off now for a walk to commune with Mother Earth.
Fedup, on 15th re internet police,lol. I sense he’s been taken for his life savings by a Lagos hopeful, already. Hence the sensitivity…
Rather late, but here comes the Cavalry! John McDonnell MP has sent out an email regarding yesterday’s launch of ‘Radical Labour’ http://www.radical-labour.co.uk/
Since the Labour Party was corrupted by Freemasonry, at the suggestion of Edward, Prince of Wales (later to be King Edward VIII) (‘Inside the Brotherhood’, Martin Short, pages 565/6).
I applaud the demise of ‘New Labour’ in Scotland; I would imagine the SNP would be far happier co-operating with a ‘Radical Labour’ party.
Re ‘DrAndrewWatt’s’ comment about Cameron’s hypocrisy, pretending to be against Terrorism whilst committing it in Iraq, how about Syria? That is far worse. Roland Dumas, French ex-Foreign Minister, is on various video interviews, saying that about two years before the so-called ‘Arab (Soros?) Spring’ he was approached by high British officials whom he knew, who told him that Britain was planning the overthrow of Assad with mercenaries: ‘Former French Foreign Minister: The War against Syria was Planned Two years before “The Arab Spring”: http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-french-foreign-minister-the-war-against-syria-was-planned-two-years-before-the-arab-spring/5339112
‘France’s Former Foreign Minister: UK Government Prepared War in Syria Two Years Before 2011 Protests’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I
Also, two British planes were claimed to have been shot down by Iraqi forces whilst airdropping arms to ISIL/IS, as was a US helicopter: ‘Iraqi Army Downs 2 UK Planes Carrying Weapons for ISIL’:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931204001534
‘Iraq’s Popular Forces Release Photo of Downed US Chopper Carrying Arms for ISIL’:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345
If this all seems too far-fetched, just check out the ‘Yinon Plan’, a 1982 Israeli plan to Balkanise the large Arab/Muslim countries around Israel, to weaken them and facilitate ‘Greater Israel’. So ‘IS’ hasn’t gone ‘rogue’, it is still carrying out the task it’s Western, Israeli, Saudi and Gulf controllers gave it to perform (and mug Muslim youths go off to unwittingly fight for the Zionist’s ‘Greater Israel’ plans, helping to produce another ‘Nakba’ of massacres and mass ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ of the various people’s of the area.
I missed out a part of what I wanted to write above: after ‘Since the Labour Party was corrupted by Freemasonry, at the suggestion of Edward, Prince of Wales (later to be King Edward VIII) (‘Inside the Brotherhood’, Martin Short, pages 565/6)’ I meant to write that the Labour Party has progressively moved towards the Right; now it’s a haven for people with no concern for the workers who elected them (the exceptions prove the rule). Falling over each other in the race to the ‘Westminster Trough’: just like the other parties, really!
The matronly Mary has no reply for the juvenile and puerile Villager.