to wonder how the occupy random places people

[Sevenfold]

can afford to do it.
if they work, are they on holiday? are they rich?
if on JS, don't they loose that as they are not looking for work......

The democratic system we have is up the creek. It's also run by corporate business men. They also lied. University fees for example, protecting the poor, the disabled, the ill. People have the right to say that they are not happy when what they voted for is not happening. The Liberal party promised no increases with regard to students, they reneged on that pretty damn quick. Ergo, elected representatives is not the way to go.
Apart from which, it is damn hard to get into politics if you are not in a reasonably monied position. Which of course means, you have no other way of making your point heard.
As for the nonsense about educational rights for women, the bnp etc. I'm sorry, but they are not valid arguments.

Lol Donna. So you don't approve of elected representatives but you do approve of groups of people taking matters into their own hands, providing it's only people you agree with and not people you don't like the BNP!

Right.

Oh, grow up.
You can't counter an argument but using an irrelavancy.

That is pretty much what you said though donna. Please explain the difference between occupy, bnp and religious extremists. All are groups with IMO unreasonable/unrealistic views, all are small in number but claim to represent many more all consider themselves to be outside of a "corrupt" system. The only difference is you agree with one of the groups.

London, your example below would fall foul of free speech legislation because it discriminates against women

Ok so going back to my example above, would you support a group of a few hundred religious extremists demanding that a council didn't allow females access to education? If not why not?

I believe you are referring to equalities legislation rather than free speech legislation. There may be legislation againsts councils acting on the demand but there would be no law against asking for it. What about the other examples I gave do you think they should go ahead?

I agree with Dawndonna. And londonone your arguments are a bit lame, aren't they? What has the BNP got to do with this? The Occupy 'demands' look eminently reasonable to me. As someone else asked, further up the thread, what on earth is wrong with more accountability and transparency?

woollyideas - how apt!

London, no it is free speech legislation. You cannot go out on the street and march asking for women or minorities etc. to be banned from schools, pubs or whatever else. This is not Afghanistan. Hate speech is illegal in most democracies. I think your arguments are quite lame.

Just don't see what your beef is with the Occupy movement, really.

Londonone - how original...

I think that the Occupy movement is great. These are people who offer their time to highlight what is wrong in our Western democracies at the moment. The key thing first is to ask the right questions. As far as I am concerned they do not need to come with the answers, we, as a society, need to come with the answers. In many other countries the Occupy movement is being taken much more seriously and more embraced. In the UK there is a stream of vested interests fighting hard to marginalise them. Anyway, it just shows, the UK is ultimately still a feudal system. It is time for a change.

flatbread - I don't profess to be any expert on the legislation but I was under the impression we had free speech unless it was inciting hatred or terrorism. I know however that the law has had several changes recently so I am willing to stand corrected. Hence the BNP and other odious groups being able to protest etc

My beef with the occupy movement is with the arrogance of a small group of people proclaiming themsleves as spekaing for the majority and making demands on behalf of "the Public" completely outside any sort of democratic system.

Argumentum ad hominem is still not a valid argument.

Sorry Donna, do you actually have a point?

that would be the point you missed.

Do please point out my personal attack Donna!

Too literal an interpretation of the phrase.

Silly me. Looking at what you wrote and responding to it. In future I will do as others do and simply respond to what I think someone wrote rather than what they actually did write!

Ah, we finally got there!

And you think that's a good thing? Very odd.

So, londonone, the protesters have no right to protest... if that's the case, does that mean you also disapprove of lobbyists wining and dining and otherwise cosying up to politicians? Or does a suit and a bit of money make it alright?

Just need to know that you're consistent in your disapproval, that's all.

Try reading the thread, you might find the multiple posts where I support fully their right to protest.

And yes I would equally disagree with lobbyists who demand actions to be taken at their behest.

Or lobbyists who claim to represent 99% of the population.

The Starbucks jibes are tedious. They're nothing out of the ordinary over here, as far as I know, but in the US, they provide many women with flexible, part time jobs which actually come with benefits such as health insurance and contributions to pension plans - way over and above what many other employers provide to low skilled workers, over there.