Forum Topic

A Question is the UK still a Democracy?

I listened this morning to Sunday Politics and 3 things jumped out at me that frightened me.1) 3 Children had been taken from their Foster Parents because they were members of UKIP, does this not remind us of Germany in the 30's.2) Apparently we are to be told what fast foods we can eat or not,our diet is our business, of course we should be responsible and not live on these foods,however it is our choice and we should have the freedom to choose, youngsters are not stupid and young girls are all to aware of how they want to look.3) Lord Leveson will bring his deliberations to a head this week and Politicians want to Regulate our Newspapers.Yes some newspapers have gone over the top on occasion however they have also brought so much bad to our attention,without newspapers we would have had no knowledge of these happenings, we really do need Freedom of the Press & Speech within our Society, take this away and the Politicos will have a field day and do anything that they want.After all what News do we really get from TV that is not repeated every 5 minutes. We still live in a Democracy we do not and will not tolerate being in a Dictatorship.

Dawn Hardy ● 4639d45 Comments

I most certainly did not suggest that the press not have controls, however I really do not want Politicians to control them either if this were to happen do you honestly believe that we would for instance find out about expense fiddles and not what, of course we would not.Quite frankly the newspapers have uncovered more much more than any other distribution centre has ever, mistakes do happen and we have to ensure that there are controls but! not government nor newspaper owners outside of either of these spectrum's, people who are committed to getting it right just because it is the right thing to do.Most definitely not because it is advantageous to them, let's not fool ourselves Parliament,House of Lords and Newspaper Owners would want what was best for them.Let's not forget that charges that have been brought against Journalists are ALLEGED not proven, it would be a travesty of Justice to assume what has been alleged is actual proof. 

Dawn Hardy ● 4634d

Freedom of the press is about freedom to investigate, to probe and to challenge. Everyone agrees that this is essential as the press acts as the conscience and guardian against the wrongs people do - especially people in positions of power and influence. Everyone also agrees that legislation which enables a government to curb this freedom and ability is wrong and scary.But that's not what Leveson was about. What Leveson pointed out was that these guardians against wrong - were doing wrong themselves. They were unchecked and out of control. They were not even acting against anyone in positions of power or influence. They were acting against people who were themselves victims. And did so with a cavalier disregard for the consequences of their actions. In short, the press stopped behaving like guardians and started behaving like out of control people of power and influence.Now, this was not all of the press. Indeed it was sections of the press themselves who highlighted these problems. But it demonstrated (once again) that these guardians cannot have unlimited ability to do what they like. Nor can they manage themselves. They are too open to misdirection or mis-influence (such as from money and power driven owners of their papers). Equally this oversight and management of the press cannot come directly from people in power (government). But the current model has been clearly shown not to work.It needs to change.Retaining freedom of the press is not the same as continuing to give the press unlimited remit to act as they want. You appear to be getting the two things confused.

Alan Clark ● 4634d

I watched both BBC & Sky yesterday also taped Parliament, both TV Groups never once mentioned David Cameron's worries about the legislation that is necessary to bring in the Statute of Law to dictate to the News Papers. Don't let us fool ourselves as Mr.Cameron said if any newspaper printed something that criticised Parliament once the Statute had been raised they could and would change the Law so that we the public would never know the truth.Yes of course the Newspaper Industry does need to be monitored however not by Politicians or Newspaper Owners both would only benefit themselves. On the Continent not one newspaper is allowed to criticise or tells truths about any Official be it Political are High Court therefore the populace are completely left in the dark,and perpetrators are left free to do exactly as they please everything is covered up.Newspapers are quite literally banned from printing anything, is that what we really want.We need the FREEDOM of the PRESS. For goodness sake, I so sympathise with the 2 families  however we must remember that this occurred under Labours watch, the first in 2002 when it does appear to have been forgotten a policeman gave out information and was consequently suspended from duty. For expediencies sake we must not blame one without the other.To Legislate so that Parliament can control our Press would be a disaster that we would always regret. 

Dawn Hardy ● 4634d

Shouldn't it be 'wrought'?

Susan Kelly ● 4634d

Lord Justice Leveson said the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades.If you agree with this then do you agree that society should be reminded that they must operate within boundaries? Reminded with a new control which essentially says that it is not right to agree that anything goes

George Knox ● 4634d

No and it never has been.

Robert Ayres ● 4635d

Sounds just like both major parties in the UK Michael.

Keith Iddon ● 4635d

Doesn't it though.

Dawn Hardy ● 4635d

You have your thoughts and I have mine, just leave it at that.

Dawn Hardy ● 4635d

Nazis did not just use thuggery. All that is taught in schools here is the brutality and persecution.They were rather deft at and used a lot of manipulation techniques, ignored the views of moderates and cosied up to businesses who had vested interests not necessarily of their politics.That is how Oskar Shindler got his way, at first for profit and then used it to make good.They convinced the public that they were a 'listening' party and on the side of the people.But they used and abused democracy for their own ends. Only their policies and opinions were valid, no one elses. Sound familiar?

Michael Brandt ● 4636d

'Absolutely not! German Nazis where imprisoning people as early as 1932 maybe before, if you disagreed you were automatically taken up as a political prisoner, tortured until you admitted what they wished purely because you had spoken your mind.'I am not aware that anyone in Rotherham has been arrested, let alone tortured. Your insistence on this comparison is an insult to victims of Nazism.

Susan Kelly ● 4636d

Absolutely not! German Nazis where imprisoning people as early as 1932 maybe before, if you disagreed you were automatically taken up as a political prisoner, tortured until you admitted what they wished purely because you had spoken your mind.I see today that we are to have larger Parking Costs so that we will walk more and get healthier, what a load of *******just an excuse to tax us more, so that we can give the EU more funds.Well CHARITY begins at home, both mine and your utility bills are exorbitant, about time someone in government had the balls to put a cap on them.

Dawn Hardy ● 4636d

This is why we must always question these outrageous decisions, complacency is the road to ruin.

Dawn Hardy ● 4636d

I would have thought that a decision like that would have been made after investigation as to the Children's Welfare plus a staff meeting. Political Correctness is destroying our society. As you say the children should have come first.

Dawn Hardy ● 4636d

This was an isolated incident, Dawn, and has been condemned by just about everybody who isn't a social worker in Rotherham. It's not proof that Britain is turning into Nazi Germany, which is, IMO, an offensive comparison.

Susan Kelly ● 4636d

If politicians can get away with breaking manifesto commitments then no frankly.

Ian Speed ● 4636d

I agree that the decision would have been made by social workers but it's more about their own blinkered thinking than welfare for the children.Done of course in the name of the child's welfare of course,but in name only.

Keith Iddon ● 4636d

I suspect the decision was one made by social workers rather than the council, it's just plain bonkers. The issue is one of stability and care for the children.

Vanessa Smith ● 4636d

The criteria is the same, these Foster Parents have been exemplary for 7 years and now a Labour Council has decided(it could have just as easily been another party)that because they are members of UKIP they are no longer acceptable. Bloody disgraceful.

Dawn Hardy ● 4636d

Well put.

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

Surely Prison is supposed to be a punishment, can you imagine the votes cast by prisoners, let's not forget that some are inside for heinous crimes should they really be able to vote?

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

I really do not agree with prisoners getting the vote,Gay marriages ok as long as the principal works the same as Heterosexual marriages. i:e:Do you get half the house if you divorce?

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

Worked in our day Keith, now my grand daughter has to have a Rugby Kit with boots, T-Shirt,Sweat Pants,white trainers etc, detention if not.

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

It's automatically compulsory although dieting isn't, just good eating.

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

Have you quite finished? these Foster Parents have been good parents to numerous children for 7 years why now should they be deigned unsuitable because they belong to UKIP. I always vote Conservative does that mean that I am to be blackballed if I want to join a local club that have different political views.Dictatorship works that way not Democracy.

Dawn Hardy ● 4637d

I agree we should be very wary and this latest attempt to have 'secret courts'and being able to monitor people's e-mails etc. backed by Nick Clegg among others is extremely worrying. Who'd have thought that we'd have had The House of Lords to thank for kicking it back - and quite right too! It's intolerable, and we have to hope that Leveson comes up with some sensible ideas, for as much as the press do try it on so much would get done by government on the quiet to our detriment and we'd never know. We also need to ensure protection for whistleblowers no matter in what area they work who get a really rough deal, it's simply no good paying lip service to these ideals we have to uphold them.

Vanessa Smith ● 4637d

I think this country is kidding itself if it thinks it is a democracy. It tries but it is horrendously abused by those elected to uphold it and those who wish to gain from it.It is better than many free democracies, that's for sure but complacency and apathy have allowed a rot to set it that needs to be cut out and new safeguards put in place.We are letting lawyers and corporates walk all over us, corruption is creeping in and our party politics infantile more often than not.It's also time to deal with apathy.We need to do the same thing as in Australia and make failing to vote a punishable offence. Maybe community service rather than a fine. A real inconvenience.Too many people have perished trying to uphold our 'free society'. I would far rather see 3,000 spoilt ballot papers than barely a handful of voters and then politicians claiming a mandate with just a tiny percentage of the electorate.It's one thing not voting. It may be they are wholly unhappy with all parties or the candidates but the rhino skinned politicos won't be bothered by that.But a majority turning out a spoiling a ballot paper or voting for a protest candidate would speak volumes and maybe bring about a change for the better.I see a lot of parallels with the present goings on at local level to the antics of my country of origin.  We only hear of the beatings, racism and thuggery of the Nazis, and of how the trains ran on time, but very little of the way they manipulated local affairs, worryingly similar tactics to a lot of local politics here of late. But it is really down to all the public who can vote, exercising that right.

Michael Brandt ● 4637d

We have alwys had loads to put up with and governments tinkering around with what others see as nonsense.It's more the things we have been promised by successive govns.,like a referendum on Europe,that we haven't had that is irritating.You are absolutely correct about the tax avoidance/evasion,but that didn't seem to be an issue when New Labour was in power,but the same people/companies were avoiding/evading then.It was 'Spend Spend Spend' and no-one cared.Now it has come home to roost and the tax avoiding/evading class are in power.

Keith Iddon ● 4637d

The point I was trying to make Keith was - is prisoners getting the vote a really high priority given all the other things that we are putting up with? Have the government lost a sense of perspective? These issues seem to be luxuries given the mess we're in and a few thousand cirminals being able to vote hardly is going to affect you, me or anyone else in the great scheme of things is it?

Vanessa Smith ● 4637d

This may be wishful thinking on your part Sue...I only forgot my pumps. ;-)

Keith Iddon ● 4638d

Cameron does seem sadly lacking in common sense. The way, for example, that he gets up in the Commons and more or less says that prisoners will get the vote over his dead body, only to have an almost inevitable climbdown later.Engage brain before speaking, young Dave.

Susan Kelly ● 4638d

If you forget your kit, Keith, then you'll be doing it in your pants. Much better get a note from your mum.

Susan Kelly ● 4638d

Quite,but I'm not sure all prisoners should get the vote.I think both major parties have been equally guilty in ignoring the wishes and the realities of ordinary British people in order to promote their own dogma,often for hidden reasons.

Keith Iddon ● 4638d

What amazes me are the petty things that politicians get all worked up about. Why is Cameron so upset about prisoners getting the vote, why are so many Tory MPs so annoyed about gay marriage? If only they'd get so uptight about our utility bills, education and the NHS. Their priorities seem very skewed to me. I wish they'd get their priorities right, they could start with the big corporations that don't pay their fair share of tax and mind their own business about who someone wants to get married to, it's absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. Ripping off most of the people in the country for their ever increasing fuel bills is.

Vanessa Smith ● 4638d

I've forgotten my pumps...

Keith Iddon ● 4638d

No doubt Dawn envisages compulsory PE along with the diets, but I've got a note from my mum.

Susan Kelly ● 4638d

The food we eat is only half the problem..it's also the excercise we don't take.

Keith Iddon ● 4638d

And on point 2: there is no way on God's earth that the government can tell us what we can and can't eat. How would that even work? The most they can do is nudge us by raising taxes on fatty and sugary foods but the Danes recently tried a tax on fat and scrapped it after a few months.

Susan Kelly ● 4639d

How is the incident in Rotherham -- Social Workers being stupid -- remotely like Germany in the 1930s?You surprise me, anyway, Dawn. I would expect your take on this story to be that the Eastern European family shouldn't be here using up scarce resources when they can't care for their children.

Susan Kelly ● 4639d

So much money is wasted by government on Quangos that the NHS is going to the dogs. PRIORITIZING is no longer a reality within the UK so many poor excuses are made by Parliament so much money is simply wasted on stupid schemes.We all pay into the NHS and it is our right to treatment,nobody but nobody gets ill on purpose,next we will be colour coded as to who gets treatment and who doesn't.

Dawn Hardy ● 4639d

1. Wishful thinking.2. People are dying awaiting treatment in Hospitals and once they get their it is a toss up whether they come out healthy. If people need to diet then they should pay for it themselves.It would be far worse if we did not have the Freedom of the Press.

Dawn Hardy ● 4639d

It is with regret that I entirely agree with you,unfortunately all politicians seem to have forgotten that they are in a position of power whether they are the Shadow Cabinet or not to do their best for all. Not just what they consider best for us.

Dawn Hardy ● 4639d

I'm not sure I agree with your second point Susan.Where do you draw the line ? Are smokers,drug users and drinkers also to be charged for the treatment they may need,after perhaps paying taxes into the nhs all their lives.You could quite easily have a system where someone sits in judgment about what cases are deserving of nhs treatment and which are not.You can,unfortunately, get lung cancer without being a smoker and you can be prone to obesity due to inherited genetic predisposition.Charging people who go to the doctor because they have a cold  or a sore throat or those who miss arranged appointments that others could have would be more appropriate imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4639d

1) No it doesn't remind me of Germany in the 30s at all.2) Yes, our diet is our business but it's the NHS that has to pick up the bill. Maybe we should be allowed to abuse our bodies as much as we like so long as we pay for the subsequent treatment privately.3) Not much bothered either way. Even the 'quality' press misunderstand or misrepresent almost everything anyway.

Susan Kelly ● 4639d

I am not sure that any country really has a true democracy anyway.If you define a democracy as allowing people to vote every 5 years then we do allow that yes.That it means less and less because the only choice is between the liberal left or the liberal right is the important change from years ago. On most of the proposed policies by today's parties there is hardly a fag paper's width of difference.

Keith Iddon ● 4639d