TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber

12 Sep 2010

TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.
Is here correct? I don't think so, I believe the cuts are not only required but urgent.
Or is he another union leader wishing to take on the Torys?

12 Sep 2010

This is the mad world of the Unions Blue.
A lot of the unions are funded by the taxpayer, that being me and you.
Then the Unions can spend some of that money on backing a new Labour leader, as is what is happening now.
So the taxpayers money can directly affect a possible Labour leader, that could go on to be PM.
Or like Unite who are currently doing everything in their power to bring havoc to the general public....again, are the Labour partys biggest financial contributor.
I know this is how it is done, but what a bloody crazy system.
You bet he is another union leader taking on the Tories.....remember though, history has a very funny way of repeating itself.

12 Sep 2010

As someone who works in a sector which is being hit very hard by cuts, then yes, I think I'd back what Barber and the other unions are saying.
The cuts are hitting the poorest hardest. That is not, in my opinion, the way to get out of the financial crisis.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
This is the mad world of the Unions Blue.
A lot of the unions are funded by the taxpayer, that being me and you.
Then the Unions can spend some of that money on backing a new Labour leader, as is what is happening now.
So the taxpayers money can directly affect a possible Labour leader, that could go on to be PM.
Or like Unite who are currently doing everything in their power to bring havoc to the general public....again, are the Labour partys biggest financial contributor.
I know this is how it is done, but what a bloody crazy system.
You bet he is another union leader taking on the Tories.....remember though, history has a very funny way of repeating itself.

In what way are unions funded by you Ken?

12 Sep 2010

Quote by noladreams
As someone who works in a sector which is being hit very hard by cuts, then yes, I think I'd back what Barber and the other unions are saying.
The cuts are hitting the poorest hardest. That is not, in my opinion, the way to get out of the financial crisis.

Mr Osborne said; "Of course, people who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more.
Does this not allay any fears?
From here

12 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
This is the mad world of the Unions Blue.
A lot of the unions are funded by the taxpayer, that being me and you.
Then the Unions can spend some of that money on backing a new Labour leader, as is what is happening now.
So the taxpayers money can directly affect a possible Labour leader, that could go on to be PM.
Or like Unite who are currently doing everything in their power to bring havoc to the general public....again, are the Labour partys biggest financial contributor.
I know this is how it is done, but what a bloody crazy system.
You bet he is another union leader taking on the Tories.....remember though, history has a very funny way of repeating itself.

In what way are unions funded by you Ken?
I know you did not ask me but, and I stand to be corrected, if council officials/cival servants, paid by public money are doing work for the unions, then surly that is the same thing. To my simple mind dunno

Old artical

12 Sep 2010

have you seen the riots in greece lately...!!!
We have all know we need to cut and tighten our belts.....but I do fear when the cuts are to quick and to deep. People are going to be thrown onto the unemployment scrap heap, at a time very their chances of finding alternative employment is low !! Its a dangerous cocktail of situations that leads to a large amount of people desperate and without hope. I will not be surprised if come next summer, we have full scale riots on our streets !!

12 Sep 2010

Quote by deancannock
have you seen the riots in greece lately...!!!
We have all know we need to cut and tighten our belts.....but I do fear when the cuts are to quick and to deep. People are going to be thrown onto the unemployment scrap heap, at a time very their chances of finding alternative employment is low !! Its a dangerous cocktail of situations that leads to a large amount of people desperate and without hope. I will not be surprised if come next summer, we have full scale riots on our streets !!

Let us hope they are not made too fast as I would not wish to see riots again here

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept...

The public will accept, they have become conditioned to it all.
Ten years ago, there were protests about fuel rising to 82p per litre, we are now paying 115p per litre, and the nation has accepted it. People are just accepting 'the inevitable', the fight has gone.

12 Sep 2010

with cuts to people's jobs in mind does it make projects like this a waste of money
dunno

12 Sep 2010

No..indeed Blue...no right thinking person would. But when large numbers of people lose their jobs, for what in reality is not their fault, it does breed a tide of discontent. I was reading other day that Birmingham City Council expect to have to cut staff by an average of 30% !! Health auth are are faceing same scale of cut backs .... it all adds up to a dangerous mix.
As I say..we all know we need to cut, but I would rather see a longer term plan of cuts than is being currrently being proposed.
All we can do..is sit cross out fingers and hope I guess.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
with cuts to people's jobs in mind does it make projects like this a waste of money

Well I would have sooner seen it spent on public services, but who am I?

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept...

The public will accept, they have become conditioned to it all.
Ten years ago, there were protests about fuel rising to 82p per litre, we are now paying 115p per litre, and the nation has accepted it. People are just accepting 'the inevitable', the fight has gone.
I agree, once upon a time the public would stand and fight passionately against what they deemed as being unjust but nowadays people have sadly become apathetic.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by s3xyl3xy
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept...

The public will accept, they have become conditioned to it all.
Ten years ago, there were protests about fuel rising to 82p per litre, we are now paying 115p per litre, and the nation has accepted it. People are just accepting 'the inevitable', the fight has gone.
I agree, once upon a time the public would stand and fight passionately against what they deemed as being unjust but nowadays people have sadly become apathetic.
Many are scared to fight also, I can remember when the lorry drivers held the country to ransom with during the most recent fuel crisis. An owner driver I new was contacted by the police and told if he attended a certain demonstration, that he had intended to, he would possibly face arrest under the anti terrorist laws, as he could not afford for this to happen he did not attend.
I don't think we have ever been as politically passionate as the French, have we
I have to add to this I was no supporter of the fuel strikes holding the nation to ransom

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept...

The public will accept, they have become conditioned to it all.
Ten years ago, there were protests about fuel rising to 82p per litre, we are now paying 115p per litre, and the nation has accepted it. People are just accepting 'the inevitable', the fight has gone.
I agree, once upon a time the public would stand and fight passionately against what they deemed as being unjust but nowadays people have sadly become apathetic.
Many are scared to fight also, I can remember when the lorry drivers held the country to ransom with during the most recent fuel crisis. An owner driver I new was contacted by the police and told if he attended a certain demonstration, that he had intended to, he would possibly face arrest under the anti terrorist laws, as he could not afford for this to happen he did not attend.
I don't think we have ever been as politically passionate as the French, have we
I have to add to this I was no supporter of the fuel strikes holding the nation to ransom
How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism? banghead

12 Sep 2010

Quote by s3xyl3xy
How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism?

I don't know, dunno

I can only say many of those who planed to attend were threatened in the same way, and of coarse those self employed had to back down. A pub I used to drink in at the time was frequented by many local lorry drivers, It was a big topic of conversation at the time
*IN EDIT* some one here may be able to explain how the law could have been stretched to cover this

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism?

I don't know, dunno

I can only say many of those who planed to attend were threatened in the same way, and of coarse those self employed had to back down. A pub I used to drink in at the time was frequented by many local lorry drivers, It was a big topic of conversation at the time
*IN EDIT*some one here may be able to explain how the law could have been stretched to cover this
I hope so because I would love to know how they managed to use this against them.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
As someone who works in a sector which is being hit very hard by cuts, then yes, I think I'd back what Barber and the other unions are saying.
The cuts are hitting the poorest hardest. That is not, in my opinion, the way to get out of the financial crisis.

Mr Osborne said; "Of course, people who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more.
Does this not allay any fears?
From here

No.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
This is the mad world of the Unions Blue.
A lot of the unions are funded by the taxpayer, that being me and you.
Then the Unions can spend some of that money on backing a new Labour leader, as is what is happening now.
So the taxpayers money can directly affect a possible Labour leader, that could go on to be PM.
Or like Unite who are currently doing everything in their power to bring havoc to the general public....again, are the Labour partys biggest financial contributor.
I know this is how it is done, but what a bloody crazy system.
You bet he is another union leader taking on the Tories.....remember though, history has a very funny way of repeating itself.

In what way are unions funded by you Ken?
Hello Google.
I do not pay the unions out of my pay packet but as a taxpayer....
Anyway this should make things a bit clearer...

Hope you had a really nice day, and have a very nice week too. wink

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
with cuts to people's jobs in mind does it make projects like this a waste of money

Well I would have sooner seen it spent on public services, but who am I?
the tax payer :dunno:

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
*IN EDIT* some one here may be able to explain how the law could have been stretched to cover this

It can't.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2008 has been used far too often in situations where it has not been applicable, purely because the Police have used the fear of it to suit themselves.
As an amateur photographer, this is a subject that I have read about on numerous occasions, much of it due to ignorance by those that has tried to hide behind it.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
This is the mad world of the Unions Blue.
A lot of the unions are funded by the taxpayer, that being me and you.
Then the Unions can spend some of that money on backing a new Labour leader, as is what is happening now.
So the taxpayers money can directly affect a possible Labour leader, that could go on to be PM.
Or like Unite who are currently doing everything in their power to bring havoc to the general public....again, are the Labour partys biggest financial contributor.
I know this is how it is done, but what a bloody crazy system.
You bet he is another union leader taking on the Tories.....remember though, history has a very funny way of repeating itself.

In what way are unions funded by you Ken?
Hello Google.
I do not pay the unions out of my pay packet but as a taxpayer....
Anyway this should make things a bit clearer...

Hope you had a really nice day, and have a very nice week too. wink

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Been itching to do that all day :giggle:

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

*IN EDIT* some one here may be able to explain how the law could have been stretched to cover this

It can't.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2008 has been used far too often in situations where it has not been applicable, purely because the Police have used the fear of it to suit themselves.
As an amateur photographer, this is a subject that I have read about on numerous occasions, much of it due to ignorance by those that has tried to hide behind it.

Ahh now that explains why my ex was stopped and questioned when he was taking photos of an oil refinery. It was night time and the smoke was billowing, the lights looked fantastic against the nights sky and it was a picture just waiting to be taken. He did get a few but his efforts were soon curtailed.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by s3xyl3xy
Ahh now that explains why my ex was stopped and questioned when he was taking photos of an oil refinery. It was night time and the smoke was billowing, the lights looked fantastic against the nights sky and it was a picture just waiting to be taken. He did get a few but his efforts were soon curtailed.

Photographers are an easy target, and far too often terrorism is the reason the authorities (not just Police, but private security companies too) use to attempt to stop people doing something which is not against the law.
I am known to both civilian and MOD Police, for taking pictures of military aircraft both in the air and on airbases, and am also involved in helping with setting up a scheme in conjunction with MOD Police and USAF Police as a way of involving people on both sides of the fence, to act as eyes and ears, and to also prove to them we are not a threat, just people who have varying interests in aviation.
Sadly, not everybody is that understanding about the freedoms that photographers have, or the fact they are not a threat.

12 Sep 2010

s3xyl3xy wrote:
How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism?
Boy!!!......What short memories!!!.......Don't you remember some of the antics from the 'authorities' during the national miners strike????.......Regardless of your politics that should have made people aware of the true nature of our 'security forces'!!!
I got quite a few bruises for simply standing in the wrong place.........and was stopped altogether from travelling to Yorkshire and the Midlands.......All within a 'free' state!!

12 Sep 2010

Quote by old_arse
s3xyl3xy wrote:
How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism?
Boy!!!......What short memories!!!.......Don't you remember some of the antics from the 'authorities' during the national miners strike????.......Regardless of your politics that should have made people aware of the true nature of our 'security forces'!!!
I got quite a few bruises for simply standing in the wrong place.........and was stopped altogether from travelling to Yorkshire and the Midlands.......All within a 'free' state!!

Hey been there done that debate, best not to go there on this forum :lol2: Joking!! :grin: Sorry no I would not agree that anyone in the 80's would have constituted any acts during the miners strike as an act of terrorism.
I am however in agreement that the true nature of our security forces are questionable at times.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by old_arse
s3xyl3xy wrote:
How on earth did they figure his attending such a demo would constitute an act of terrorism?
Boy!!!......What short memories!!!.......Don't you remember some of the antics from the 'authorities' during the national miners strike????.......Regardless of your politics that should have made people aware of the true nature of our 'security forces'!!!
I got quite a few bruises for simply standing in the wrong place.........and was stopped altogether from travelling to Yorkshire and the Midlands.......All within a 'free' state!!

And the 'antics' of some of the flying pickets. Well, some of them were simply travelling thugs looking for a fight and nothing to do with the miner's fight for jobs.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

*IN EDIT* some one here may be able to explain how the law could have been stretched to cover this

It can't.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2008 has been used far too often in situations where it has not been applicable, purely because the Police have used the fear of it to suit themselves.
As an amateur photographer, this is a subject that I have read about on numerous occasions, much of it due to ignorance by those that has tried to hide behind it.

I don't know then, the only thing I can say is it did happen, and legal or not the tactic worked

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

Ahh now that explains why my ex was stopped and questioned when he was taking photos of an oil refinery. It was night time and the smoke was billowing, the lights looked fantastic against the nights sky and it was a picture just waiting to be taken. He did get a few but his efforts were soon curtailed.

Photographers are an easy target, and far too often terrorism is the reason the authorities (not just Police, but private security companies too) use to attempt to stop people doing something which is not against the law.
I am known to both civilian and MOD Police, for taking pictures of military aircraft both in the air and on airbases, and am also involved in helping with setting up a scheme in conjunction with MOD Police and USAF Police as a way of involving people on both sides of the fence, to act as eyes and ears, and to also prove to them we are not a threat, just people who have varying interests in aviation.
Sadly, not everybody is that understanding about the freedoms that photographers have, or the fact they are not a threat.
I find it a sad endictment of our society that you have to set up a scheme and make yourself known to the powers that be that you are not a threat. You should just be able to do what you enjoy doing without being questioned as to your motives for taking a photo of an AWACS.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I don't know then, the only thing I can say is it did happen, and legal or not the tactic worked

Because only requires a Police officer to have suspicion of terrorism, with no requirement to prove it, and with the onus of the person(s) stopped to prove they are not,and knowing there will be a certain degree of fear, the Police have been known to use it when it is not warranted.