82 year old politician violently manhandled...

Dino · #1 09-28-2005, 04:47 PM

...out of the Labour party conference for shouting "nonsense" at Jack Straw in response to a comment he made about the Iraq war. A man who was sitting next to the heckling 80 year old was also heavy-handedly removed for saying "here here", and asking the stewards to handle the elderly politician more carefully.

The full story can be found here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm

Although they issued an apology, I personally will not accept it, as it is my opinion that the apology was only made in an attempt to reverse the damaging affects (PR wise) of removing the politician in such a way, over a mere remark. These actions are merely indicative of the true nature of the "new labour" party, whose aim is to alienate all but the top 4 most powerful members of the party, and divert power to those people.

This is the way of the new labour - freedom of speech is being ruled out as "dissent" and "terrorism", and anyone who disagrees gets forceably removed and detained under various anti-terrorism acts. The detention of this individual was the first use of an anti-terrorism act for the convenience of a British political party, which is a worrying start to an even more worrying future.

Shrink · #2 09-29-2005, 10:19 AM

Way to sensationalise.
These were voluntary stewards who were removing an audience member who were causing disruption. Pinning this on New Labour is rubbish, they didn't train the voluntary stewards, or tell them exactly how to act with 82 year olds. The stewards just did their jobs.
Can't believe how some people use this incident against Labour. Well, people will use anything.

"Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested."
This is the only bit I don't understand. Why didn't they just say, "You're not going in, you're being too disruptive. **** off."?

Munch's Master · #3 09-29-2005, 10:39 AM

I agree with Dino on this. I think that the sewards, despite being voluntary, could have listened to the guy next to the 82 year old, and treaed him more carefully due to his age. Also, you ca't say he is 'disruptive' just for voicing his opinion, even if it is against the majority and Jack straw. Plus, why bother removing the guy next to him just for agreeing? People have opinions that may in some cases be different to the opinions of those with greater political power, but they shouldn't be isolated and ignored for putting forward their views. This seems to me like any who disagree with Labour can now be labelled as terrorists, and I think Dino's right; this could sadly be the end of free speech and political beliefs, and Labour could become the modern version of fifteenth century Christianity- Preventing others of free speech and ideals. But that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Shrink · #4 09-29-2005, 10:55 AM

I'm torn between saying a 'holy shit' or 'sigh'.

Dino · #5 09-29-2005, 11:41 AM

:

Way to sensationalise.
These were voluntary stewards who were removing an audience member who were causing disruption. Pinning this on New Labour is rubbish, they didn't train the voluntary stewards, or tell them exactly how to act with 82 year olds. The stewards just did their jobs.
Can't believe how some people use this incident against Labour. Well, people will use anything.

"Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested."
This is the only bit I don't understand. Why didn't they just say, "You're not going in, you're being too disruptive. **** off."?

He wasn't being disruptive - in all previous labour party conferences, heckling was allowed and was rife. But on this particular occasion hecklers were removed for MINOR offenses.

The "voluntary" stewards ARE told at the beginning who to remove and why. Politicians who have been members of the Labour party since before Tony Blair was born do NOT come under the catagory of "who to remove" and simple internal disagreement heckling does NOT come under the catagory of "why".

This is being "used" because it SHOULD be used. It's a clear demonstration that the Labour party should not be trusted with Britain's future. The fact that they used anti-terrorism acts to stop him from going back in cements my case in that respect. These laws were not put in place to protect us from terrorism, but to oppress and control people the Labour party deems "disruptive".

Statikk HDM · #6 09-29-2005, 02:04 PM

You think thats bad? Try Bush. Bush cleared out a section of New orleans, lit it well, and had ten plus armed Secret Service members with him. Why? Because I believe that they honest-to God thought a hit would happen. The same president who detains people without criminal charges indefinately and then has them tortured. The same president who cages dissenters like dogs in "free speech" zones. You have it lucky. You have the lap dog picking up dirty tricks from the junkyard dog, we have the junkyard dog.

Adder · #7 10-03-2005, 03:35 AM

I would not call his removal "violent manhandling". However, if they remove all hecklers from now on there should not be a problem. But ONLY if they remove ALL hecklers.

The place for hecklers is in an open, unbiased debate. Not makeing sidecomments during speaches.

(And, no, I don't suport labour, or any british party for that matter. I'm irish, and have to deal with my own politicians.)

Munch's Master · #8 10-03-2005, 12:05 PM

Statikk, you make good points there, very good points. It is true that Tony Blair seems to do anything to please Bush, and your analagy of the junkyard dog/lapdog was very apt. And call me biased against Blair because I'm not Labour, but I do honestly believe that that is the case.
Dino, I don't think these new 'anti-terrorism' laws are to dicate, well, not entirely. I think they are in place to try and stop terrorism,but Labour is taking it too far with what they do, kind of like a paranoia or an overprotective mother. I also think, though, that while it is partly exaggerated anti-terrorism, it is also Labour's attempts to ensure they run the country for as long as they can. Afer all, the party in power makes the most money, and the world pretty much revolves around money. But again, take my opinion with a pinch of salt, as it's just my views.

Shrink · #9 10-03-2005, 01:34 PM

:

It is true that Tony Blair seems to do anything to please Bush, and your analagy of the junkyard dog/lapdog was very apt.

Yay, more bullshit!

:

And call me biased against Blair because I'm not Labour, but I do honestly believe that that is the case.

I believe that you believe it, but it is still bullshit.

Did you know that the Jews are secretly ruling the world? They have their fingers in a lot of pies, them Jews.

I didn't reply again with on-topic argument because Dino beat me, there is no excuse for what they did to Peterson. I disagree with the melodramatic exclamations that we heading towards a policestate, or that terror laws are evil and Orwellian, etc, though.

Munch's Master · #10 10-04-2005, 11:04 AM

Shrink, why can't you respect anyone else's opinion? Sure, you don't agree, fair enough, but why do you have to start laughing and bullshitting us like that? I like you normally and I respect you and your views, but you have no right to react like that at me or Dino for our opinions. Everybody has one, even if it isn't the same as yours. Deal with it. Disagree by all means, but at least show us some respect. You then start skitting our views by twisting our words. I never said I thought anti-terrorism laws were evil, I think that terrorism should be prevented as best as possible. What I said was that I think Labour is taking them too far, and using them to try and prevent differing views within their party, and the people. I don't want an arguement with you, I just wish you'd respect our opinions instead of ridiculing us.

Dino · #11 10-04-2005, 12:01 PM

MM has a point, shrink, you are being a bit hostile. These are just opinions after all, not facts or anything.

Statikk HDM · #12 10-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Bush is worse than Blair! What do I win? Oh yeah, 3 1/2 more years of Coocoo Bananas. Wanna trade, you guys? 2 pudding cups and a Bush for Blair and democracy.

Shrink · #13 10-04-2005, 02:25 PM

:

MM has a point, shrink, you are being a bit hostile. These are just opinions after all, not facts or anything.

Yeah, you're right.
Apologies.

:

You have the lap dog picking up dirty tricks from the junkyard dog

It's just that comments like this really annoy me, not least because they undermine Britains entire government, when Tony Blair is one of the best Prime Ministers Britain has had. I find it downright insulting, and because I did read Statikk's post at the time, I simply referred to what MM said as bullshit: i.e., the analogy is true. How is it true? How?

:

It is true that Tony Blair seems to do anything to please Bush

Either you're lying, or you don't follow politics very well. Going to war with America does not mean Blair is doing anything to please Bush. Please give some examples. Including the war, if you want.

Dino · #14 10-04-2005, 03:10 PM

Come on Shrink let's not kid ourselves here, Blair and Bush are 100% allied. The UK had no business in Iraq, and the people of the UK staged the largest anti-war protest in British history to demonstrate that fact, but Blair didn't listen.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who can remember the way that Bush went on a crusade to drum up allies who would follow him into battle, and then did that stupid "countdown to disarmament" WITH Blair. Blair jumped on Bush's bandwagon back in Afgahnistan with this war on terror, and as a result Britain became another target for terrorists.

Like it or not Blair is siding with Bush and his doing what HE wants and not what the people of the UK want. Whether this is because he's a lapdog or not doesn't matter, his actions irrefuteably demonstrate that Blair has done what Bush prefers. This certainly makes the situation look like Mr B hearts Mr W.

Munch's Master · #15 10-05-2005, 11:50 AM

I take it I don't have to give any points now, as Dino has pretty much said what I would have said. Although if you want more, I'll give it you.
Shrink, I disagree with your point about Blair being one of our best Prime Ministers, can you tell me what he's done that has benefitted? Sure he has strengthened our alliance with the USA, and is tightening down on terrorism (Although again, I think he's taking that too far), but look at the bad points:
Unemployment, crime, illegal immigration, have any of these things dropped while Blair's been PM? Not really. Although Statikk, I'll admit, I would rather have Blair than Bush, although I think neither is particularly effective.