From: "Paul McDermott", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Anne Pearston was criticised for the simple reason that she was not
>from Dunblane and had no direct connection to any of the victims or
>their families.
But she had a legal right to campaign abiout anything she felt strongly
about?
>The whole thing was a travesty and about as far removed from "democracy"
>as it gets. And frankly democracy stinks anyway, few countries
>have what could be called democracy, they generally have a republican
>form of government with certain rules - we don't, which is one of
>the reasons why we were shafted.
The vast majority of 'Joe Public' I have spoken to don't feel it was a
travesty. The majority won. We lost.
No legal system is perfect, all pretty crappy. I've never met anyone, from
anywhere in the world, who liked their political system.
Paul.
--
She had a right to complain, but she was misrepresented as a parent
of one of the victims and that was inaccurate. For Tony Blair
to put her on the podeum at the Labour Party conference was
purely a manipulation, and the press played it for all it was
worth. Of course politicians use manipulation all the time, but
my view is that Tony Blair stepped way over the line at the
Labour Party conference because it prevented objective consideration
of the public inquiry report, and I cannot think of any similar
instance of a anti-anything campaigner being given a platform
like that. It was just low, a propaganda move that ranks with
anything the Nazis did.
The problem is that the "majority" will always win in our system
and that is what is largely wrong with it as minority rights are
stampeded into the ground. Few countries have as little safeguards
as we do on civil rights, or rather as little respect for those
safeguards, with Anne Widdecombe describing them as "silly" for
example.
It doesn't matter a toss what the "majority" thinks, putting the
owners of gun clubs into poverty by depriving them of their
livelihood with virtually no compensation (except for the club
guns and ammo, wow) is simply wrong.
If we had a proper system of checks and balances then people like
Tony Blair would be able to manipulate the public, BUT it would
not have the ramifications that it did in 1996.
I can't remember which President said it, but it goes something like:
"Constitutions act as a check on the hasty actions of the majority,
to ensure sober and proper actions."
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
