# China Olympics - London protest



## Staples (7 Apr 2008)

Anyone witness the protests on the news last night?

What amazed me were the number of policemen/women surrounding the runners with the torch.

Good job it wasn't here.  Where you find enough gardai fit enough to run?


----------



## ivuernis (7 Apr 2008)

Staples said:


> Anyone witness the protests on the news last night?
> 
> What amazed me were the number of policemen/women surrounding the runners with the torch.
> 
> Good job it wasn't here.  Where you find enough gardai fit enough to run?



My cousin is a Garda, does marathons and triathlons, fittest person I know.


----------



## boaber (7 Apr 2008)

> Good job it wasn't here. Where you find enough gardai fit enough to run?



would 100 be enough?

[broken link removed]


----------



## Megan (7 Apr 2008)

boaber said:


> would 100 be enough?
> 
> [broken link removed]



That's good to know we have 100 fit gardai - were they there in time for the French protest?


----------



## Blueberry08 (8 Apr 2008)

Megan said:


> That's good to know we have 100 fit gardai - were they there in time for the French protest?



The marathon was on Sunday? They were probably still running when the torch arrived. I hope those baton-wielding French cops on their roller-blades didn't think our boys were Tibetan protestors, they'll be black and blue.


----------



## Elphaba (10 Apr 2008)

The Games provide a world-wide podium for protest every four years. And there is not much the Olympic movement can do about it. It goes back to 1908, when Irish athletes, (go-on-ye-boy-ye!)angered at the refusal of Britain to give Ireland its independence, boycotted the Games in London.

The irony is that the Games are mostly remembered for protests especially the performance of the black US athlete Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals under Hitler's nose. The Olympic torch relay idea was started by the Nazi organisers of the 36 Games as part of their self-glorification effort. It remains to be seen if, after this year's protests, the relay survives.


----------



## soy (11 Apr 2008)

Staples said:


> Anyone witness the protests on the news last night?
> 
> What amazed me were the number of policemen/women surrounding the runners with the torch.



The guys in the blue tracksuits that surround the torch bearer later turned out to be Chinese Secret Service Agents. Created a bit of controversey as they apparently entered the UK as tourists.

The torch relay has turned into a debacle. The IOC will almost certainly ban it in future as the sponsers are raging with the negative publicity that it has attracted.

Good article in last weeks Sunday Times about the torch relay http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3689920.ece


----------



## Purple (11 Apr 2008)

soy said:


> The torch relay has turned into a debacle. The IOC will almost certainly ban it in future as the sponsers are raging with the negative publicity that it has attracted.



Or the IRC could try not awarding the games to totalitarian police states who invade and oppress their neighbours...


----------



## Complainer (11 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> Or the IRC could try not awarding the games to totalitarian police states who invade and oppress their neighbours...


I guess that rules out a lot of the major Western powers too...


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> I guess that rules out a lot of the major Western powers too...



Like who?


----------



## stir crazy (12 Apr 2008)

I can probably guess whats coming next


----------



## Complainer (13 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> Like who?


Like those who led or participated the Western invasion of Iraq based on disinformation.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Like those who led or participated the Western invasion of Iraq based on disinformation.




Good point, but they are not totalitarian police states and while their actions in Iraq are at the very least questionable attempting to establish a moral equivalence between a free and democratic country and an oppressive police state is absurd.


----------



## Complainer (14 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> Good point, but they are not totalitarian police states and while their actions in Iraq are at the very least questionable attempting to establish a moral equivalence between a free and democratic country and an oppressive police state is absurd.


I'd imagine that those who are locked up in Guantanamo Bay without any access to lawyers or courts might not think it is such an absurd comparison.


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> I'd imagine that those who are locked up in Guantanamo Bay without any access to lawyers or courts might not think it is such an absurd comparison.


They would if they were thinking logically.
What do you think, do you think it's an apt comparison?


----------



## DavyJones (15 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> They would if they were thinking logically.
> What do you think, do you think it's an apt comparison?


 

Probably hard to think logically when you are "fake drowned" on a regular basis, hours of solitude, no hope of release. could go on but am starting to depress myself.


----------



## Complainer (15 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> They would if they were thinking logically.
> What do you think, do you think it's an apt comparison?


Well, I accept that perhaps 'totalitarian' is a bit over the top, but then again, perhaps 'democratic' is a bit over the top to describe the USA. How democratic is that country really? Voters have a choice between a right wing or a centre right party, both of which are effectively owned by their corporate funders. Both parties are tripping overthemselves to keep their funders sweet by handing over piles of cash to their funders through privatisation and outsourcing of all aspects of their operations, including now, outsourced war. It is the best democracy money can buy.


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Well, I accept that perhaps 'totalitarian' is a bit over the top, but then again, perhaps 'democratic' is a bit over the top to describe the USA. How democratic is that country really? Voters have a choice between a right wing or a centre right party, both of which are effectively owned by their corporate funders. Both parties are tripping overthemselves to keep their funders sweet by handing over piles of cash to their funders through privatisation and outsourcing of all aspects of their operations, including now, outsourced war. It is the best democracy money can buy.


The Democratic party has a system where so-called "Super Delegates" have a huge proportion of the vote when they decide who their presidential nominee is. A large proportion of these delegates are from the labour unions. This is much like the process used by the British Labour party in the 70's and 80's. While the electorate in America are generally right-wing the Democratic party in certainly not. It makes the odd rightwing noise but it could not be described as a centre-right party.

As for looking after their funders, we have gone one further; we have institutionalised the lobby groups and given them a seat at the table (and fundamentally undermined or democracy in the process). This system is called "Social Partnership". 

As for American democracy, it is important to remember that they are a federal republic and more than one president has been elected who lost the popular vote (JFK springs to mind). They also send their public officials (and white collar criminals) to prison for breaking the rules, maybe we could take a leaf out of that book. Vincent Browne wrote an excellent article about corporate crime at the weekend. The same article could have been written about politics. When it comes to throwing the first stone at American politics we are not without sin...


----------



## Complainer (18 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> The Democratic party has a system where so-called "Super Delegates" have a huge proportion of the vote when they decide who their presidential nominee is. A large proportion of these delegates are from the labour unions. This is much like the process used by the British Labour party in the 70's and 80's. While the electorate in America are generally right-wing the Democratic party in certainly not. It makes the odd rightwing noise but it could not be described as a centre-right party.


Are you certain about the superdelegates coming from the unions? I confess to knowing SFA about the delegate system, but from a bit of Googling, all I can find is that the superdelegates are senior party officials. Do you have another source?




Purple said:


> As for looking after their funders, we have gone one further; we have institutionalised the lobby groups and given them a seat at the table (and fundamentally undermined or democracy in the process). This system is called "Social Partnership".


There is a huge difference between the social partners (who hold their positions through representation of substantial parts of the community) and funders who buy their positions.




Purple said:


> As for American democracy, it is important to remember that they are a federal republic and more than one president has been elected who lost the popular vote (JFK springs to mind). They also send their public officials (and white collar criminals) to prison for breaking the rules, maybe we could take a leaf out of that book. Vincent Browne wrote an excellent article about corporate crime at the weekend. The same article could have been written about politics. When it comes to throwing the first stone at American politics we are not without sin...


They send some of their public officials to jail for breaking the rules. They choose to ignore the fact that the most senior of politicians in the Bush regime continued to break conflict of interest rules by retaining shareholdings in companies that profited from the outsourcing of the war. For the record, I'm not throwing stones and claiming we are without sin.


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Are you certain about the superdelegates coming from the unions? I confess to knowing SFA about the delegate system, but from a bit of Googling, all I can find is that the superdelegates are senior party officials. Do you have another source?


 I think you are correct, and I was incorrect; they merely court the unions so that they endorse a particular candidate.



Complainer said:


> There is a huge difference between the social partners (who hold their positions through representation of substantial parts of the community) and funders who buy their positions.


 The social partners all counted together sill represent a minority of the population. That’s not the point though, the NRA in America represent millions of people but they don’t get what amounts to a veto on government policy. 
The thing is that the only people who are elected by the people to represent them in government are the politicians. I don’t want IBEC, CORI or SUPTU telling the elected government of the people how to run the country. It’s fundamentally undemocratic.  



Complainer said:


> They send some of their public officials to jail for breaking the rules. They choose to ignore the fact that the most senior of politicians in the Bush regime continued to break conflict of interest rules by retaining shareholdings in companies that profited from the outsourcing of the war. For the record, I'm not throwing stones and claiming we are without sin.


 We ignore conflicts of interest and we don’t send anyone to prison unless they can’t throw a few hundred thousand into a high profile legal team at the high court.
The Yanks aren’t perfect by any means but just imagine what we’d get up to if we were the big boys on the block...


----------



## Complainer (19 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> The social partners all counted together sill represent a minority of the population. That’s not the point though, the NRA in America represent millions of people but they don’t get what amounts to a veto on government policy.
> The thing is that the only people who are elected by the people to represent them in government are the politicians. I don’t want IBEC, CORI or SIPTU telling the elected government of the people how to run the country. It’s fundamentally undemocratic.



I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.



In practical terms they do.
One example; The government said that they would open up the Dublin bus market. The unions slapped them back down into their place and the government went scurrying off with its tail between its legs.


----------



## Complainer (21 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> In practical terms they do.
> One example; The government said that they would open up the Dublin bus market. The unions slapped them back down into their place and the government went scurrying off with its tail between its legs.


I'm open to correction on this, but wasn't it the PD wing of the Govt (which didn't hold the transport portfolio) that wanted to open up the Dublin market, and the FF wing (which did hold the transport portfolio) that didn't?


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> I'm open to correction on this, but wasn't it the PD wing of the Govt (which didn't hold the transport portfolio) that wanted to open up the Dublin market, and the FF wing (which did hold the transport portfolio) that didn't?


I'm not sure either but you could well be right. The point is though that a government policy which was implemented to improve the public transport infrastructure delivered to the people of Dublin was reversed due to union pressure. Everyone from the AA to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce supported the opening up of the market so it's not as if it was a contentious right wing policy. When a service is delivered by a monopoly and the only organisation in favour of maintaining the status quo is that monopoly it is usually the case that change (i.e. competition) will benefit those that consume the service.

I accept that the fact that the state has shown itself to be almost completely incapable of regulating any area where services are publicly delivered is of concern but the solution is not to just leave things as they are.


----------



## Complainer (22 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> I'm not sure either but you could well be right. The point is though that a government policy which was implemented to improve the public transport infrastructure delivered to the people of Dublin was reversed due to union pressure. Everyone from the AA to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce supported the opening up of the market so it's not as if it was a contentious right wing policy. When a service is delivered by a monopoly and the only organisation in favour of maintaining the status quo is that monopoly it is usually the case that change (i.e. competition) will benefit those that consume the service.


It is fiction to suggest that 'everyone' supported the opening up of the market. It is indeed a contentious right-wing policy. Many posters even here on AAM (which is not exactly a hotbed of lefty thinkers) questioned why go down the privatisation route, given that this has generally been an abysmal failure in the UK.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> It is fiction to suggest that 'everyone' supported the opening up of the market. It is indeed a contentious right-wing policy. Many posters even here on AAM (which is not exactly a hotbed of lefty thinkers) questioned why go down the privatisation route, given that this has generally been an abysmal failure in the UK.



AAm is hardly a hotbed of leftwing politics either but I take your point. My point is that right or wrong the government of the people made a decision and a vested interest group made them reverse it. If it was IBEC I'd be just as unhappy but the fact is that the unions have too much power in this country, which is as bad (or maybe worse) as them having too little power.


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> My point is that right or wrong the government of the people made a decision and a vested interest group made them reverse it.


Sorry, but in the example, you have not shown that the govt made a decision and you have not shown that a vested interest group made them reverse it. Perhaps there is a touch of paranoia here?

For the record, ICTU represents about 830,000 members, or somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total population, or between one-half to one-third of the working population, who pay a couple of hundred quid each to participate, and who decide democratically about participating in partnership talks.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2008)

According to this there were 602,644 members in 2007. The vast majority of whom are civil and public servants. This means that the ICTU is, in effect, a public service employee lobby group. Anyway, it doesn't matter how many members they have they should not be dictating government policy. 

I don't accept for a minute that the liberalisation of the Dublin bus market was a "contentious right-wing policy".
Other than the protectionists in the unions and Dublin Bus employees I have not heard anyone say that a well regulated market with competition on the delivery of services was a bad idea. The vested interest groups frustrated a government policy designed to improve the delivery of services to the public. I am not in the least bit surprised that the unions took this position since they do the same thing in health and every other public service. They have the same mindset as their comrades who destroyed the British car, ship building and steel industries between the 1950's and the 1980's.


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> The vast majority of whom are civil and public servants. This means that the ICTU is, in effect, a public service employee lobby group.


Source please?


Purple said:


> I don't accept for a minute that the liberalisation of the Dublin bus market was a "contentious right-wing policy".
> Other than the protectionists in the unions and Dublin Bus employees I have not heard anyone say that a well regulated market with competition on the delivery of services was a bad idea. The vested interest groups frustrated a government policy designed to improve the delivery of services to the public.


We're going in circles here. If you haven't heard anyone say 'blah blah blah', then you haven't been reading other AAM threads on this issue. Rather than going over the DB issue again and again, perhaps you'd address the fact that you have not shown that the govt made a decision and you have not shown that a vested interest group made them reverse it.

If you're going to go blaming ICTU, you really need to present a better case than your own paranoia.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> If you're going to go blaming ICTU, you really need to present a better case than your own paranoia.


We certainly are going around in circles. 
If you choose to ignore that government policy was frustrated by union pressure I have neither the time and the inclination to make you to see the blindingly obvious. But just for the hell of it; FG though so too. Declan O’Farrell, Chief Executive of Metroline plc, agrees as well. He said, “The Minister and his department have been talking for a long time now about their plans to liberalise the public transport market and the ongoing uncertainty and equivocation is not helpful. It would appear to be the Unions that are currently dictating public transport policy”.[broken link removed]

I think the issue here has less to do with what you perceive as my paranoia and more to do with your own bias and preconceptions stemming from your strong ideological views.


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> If you choose to ignore that government policy was frustrated by union pressure I have neither the time and the inclination to make you to see the blindingly obvious.


I'm not ignoring anything. I will continue to point out that you have completely failed to show that there was any trade union involvement in this policy u-turn. Maybe I'm picky, but it would be nice to have some independent, reliable evidence to back up your claim.



Purple said:


> But just for the hell of it; FG though so too. Declan O’Farrell, Chief Executive of Metroline plc, agrees as well. He said, “The Minister and his department have been talking for a long time now about their plans to liberalise the public transport market and the ongoing uncertainty and equivocation is not helpful. It would appear to be the Unions that are currently dictating public transport policy”


The words of Mandy Rice Davies spring to mind.


----------

