Another Blow (or two) for Freedom ?

**An_Inspector_Calls** · 02-09-13, 19:22

Does the climate need saving?

**teamsaint** · 02-09-13, 19:27

yes.*
next?

Are these bills going to be good news, AIC?

*possibly.

**french frank** · 02-09-13, 20:09

Comments from the Electoral Commission:

"The current rules apply to people and organisations spending money on distributing “election material” to the public.

The definition of election material includes adverts, leaflets, websites and other materials that could reasonably be seen as intended to influence voting choice at the election.

Material can be covered by the rules even if it is intended to achieve something else, such as raising awareness of a public policy issue.

For instance, if an organisation campaigns for a policy that is strongly associated with some parties or candidates and not others, this could be caught by the definition."

**An_Inspector_Calls** · 02-09-13, 20:13

Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

yes.*
next?

What from?

**An_Inspector_Calls** · 02-09-13, 20:16

How do you think this would apply to the BBC then?

Sorry, I'm asking questions rather than making points, but that does seem to be rather fashionable these days.

**teamsaint** · 02-09-13, 20:18

Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post

What from?

Danger.

Lets get on topic, inspector.

**Frances_iom** · 02-09-13, 20:20

I guess it should stop the American form of corporate sponsored political campaigning supposedly indep of any party but actually strongly linked to one - the UK has a current 'fixed' term parliament by agreement but will this last in future (here on IoM with no parties we do have fixed term parliaments) thus how can the funding in the 12 months pre election be organised

**Pabmusic** · 03-09-13, 00:10

Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

...Don't British governments love freedom? isn't that what we fight all these wars for?...

I doubt that British Governments do hold the idea of freedom very high. Our 'freedoms' have traditionally been what is left after we've obeyed the law - 'residual freedoms' they are often called. Much of the time this has worked well and we have enjoyed high levels of actual freedom, but at other times... Now we have the ECHR, it's a little more difficult to curtail freedoms - or rather, governments face more challenges. Let's see what challenges there are, but I suspect that any successful challenge under the ECHR will result in more demands for action against these interfering Europeans.

I can't think of a war we've ever fought for 'freedom', but I'll try a bit harder.

**teamsaint** · 03-09-13, 06:21

Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post

I doubt that British Governments do hold the idea of freedom very high. Our 'freedoms' have traditionally been what is left after we've obeyed the law - 'residual freedoms' they are often called. Much of the time this has worked well and we have enjoyed high levels of actual freedom, but at other times... Now we have the ECHR, it's a little more difficult to curtail freedoms - or rather, governments face more challenges. Let's see what challenges there are, but I suspect that any successful challenge under the ECHR will result in more demands for action against these interfering Europeans.

I can't think of a war we've ever fought for 'freedom', but I'll try a bit harder.

luckily, i don't listen to what governments say, I look at what they do....they will ban winkeyeye smileys before we know it.....

The freedom to keep our arms trade rolling along (for example) seems to be a high priority.

**Resurrection Man** · 03-09-13, 07:01

Originally posted by pabmusic View Post

....

I can't think of a war we've ever fought for 'freedom', but i'll try a bit harder.

WW II ?

Falklands ?

**umslopogaas** · 03-09-13, 09:02

#11 RM, I agree completely about WW2, I was just about to suggest myself that we (our parents and grandparents) fought that one to preserve our freedom from Nazi Germany rule. However, I think the Falklands War is a bit more contentious. The freedom of the Falkland Islanders to remain British was a convenient excuse, but a lot of people would say we really did it for the oil reserves. I like to think we would have fought anyway, even if there wasnt any oil, but that's a big IF, because if there wasnt, would the islanders still want to stay British? And if they didnt should we, or would we even have been bothered, to take steps to force them? Again, I like to think they would like to be British anyway, even without the development that exploitation of their oil will one day bring. Which probably wont happen until the next generation of aircraft carriers are ready to protect the wells, as well being deferred until it becomes economically attractive to extract.

**Pabmusic** · 03-09-13, 09:46

Originally posted by Resurrection Man View Post

WW II ?

Falklands ?

I'd like to think that a war for 'freedom' would involve rather more than turfing out an invader - a narrow definition of freedom. If WW2 is a war for freedom because we declared war in support of Poland, then WW1 was a war for freedom too (we declared war in support of Belgium) yet there would I suspect be many who wouldn't accept that so easily. As for the Falklands, it was as much a war for freedom as the first Gulf War. And Korea was also to turf out an invader - so that must have been a war for freedom, too. And when the Japanese Empire threatened to invade India to free it from the British, we resisted successfully (battle of Kohima) - thus preserving Indian freedom.

I don't want to diminish in the least the real achievements of real people in awful situations, but talk of wars fought 'for freedom' over-simplifies some very complicated political situations.

I have thought of something we did do that came near to being a 'war for freedom'. During the Napoleonic Wars, the South American states had taken the opportunity to conduct several wars of independence from Spain and Portugal. When the European wars ceased, both countries began preparations to retake their American colonies. The received history has it that President Monroe scuppered these ideas by making a famous speech to Congress in December 1823 - the Monroe Doctrine - warning the Europeans to have no further designs on the Americas. But the USA was incapable of stopping Spain and Portugal (it wasn't a superpower in 1823) so the Monroe Doctrine was all mouth and no trousers.

Britain was a superpower with a navy larger than the rest of the world combined, and we stationed a fleet off the Azores for the best part of seven years, and warned Spain and Portugal that they'd better not attempt to recapture the South American states. And they didn't. It wasn't all altruistic, of course - Britain had already established trade with Brazil and Argentina - but we didn't take land or treasure, and we had little influence with the USA. But we ensured the 'freedom' of a continent.

And it's an episode unknown in our history. I think it's worth remembering.

**teamsaint** · 03-09-13, 15:44

just to add(hopefully) to Pabs excellent post, the big picture, the one that governments and other powers don't always want us to see, is always worth keeping in mind.

I suspect that an in depth study of banking and Industrial interests around all sides in the two world wars might be very revealing.

**zoomy** · 03-09-13, 20:28

Ho ho yes teamsaint, wasn't Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) on the board of a bank whose assets were seized under 'trading with the enemy' laws in the United States ?