British Postmen and democracy.

[BillyTK]

No, I can't. In fact, I'm probably wrong.

Do you think that this demolishes the remainder of my argument, or is the remainder just not worth replying to at all?

MattJ

Perhaps your argument is a little strange?

 

[Giz]

Democracy means sometimes you have to put up with things you don't like.

Campaign against the BNP. Challenge them in the press. Argue your case wherever you can.


The BNP will be defeated because people will see them for the idiots that they are. What these postmen are doing is wrong. It is not up to them to decide how our democracy works. Our representatives in the big building on the Thames have been entrusted with that authority.

Exactly! I'm sure the Postal Workers have the best intentions but a healthy democratic society doesn't have it's [freedom of] speech censored by the mailmen.

Unless I missed a change in our living constitution/accumulated detritus and supreme executive power is now vested in the postie...

 

[LillyThePink]

I got the flyer. I live in a rural village in North Yorkshire.

I put it straight in the bin. Thankfully, it was my CHOICE to do so. I don't want a fricking postman censoring my mail. Bad enough they try and open it, ffs.

 

[richardm]

We got it here as well, which surprised me a little; I've always thought of the BNP as being a mainly English party, but there you go.

I chucked it out straight away, which annoyed my other half when she found out - she was looking forward to ranting at it.

 

[BillyTK]

<tangent>

I don't think the moment has come when we cannot trust the people with democracy. Or maybe I should say that the moment we don't, it's not a democracy anymore.

As Skeptic says:

Why stop here? Suppose a deeply religious mailman decides to destroy "heathen" literature someone along his route is getting...

Democracy is letting your opponents speak. It wouldn't even be necessary if everyone thought the same as I.

Get the mail out.

I suspect that Skeptic missed the point I made about the anti-democratic nature of the BNP, which of course makes his objection here a strawman. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of any particular person or group appointing themselves as guardians of democracy to any greater extent than we're all guardians of democracy... except for those who aren't. It's not that we carnt trust the people with democracy, as much as to what extent we should trust those who are explicitly anti-democratic, particularly when they sugar-coat their message to get round the legal instruments which would normal stop them, as the BNP have done. Maybe we could sue them for fraud?

Anyway, here's some interesting thoughts on the issue although the texts read like they've been annoted directly from spoken presentations it's worthwhile reading, imo.

</tangent>

 

[Giz]

But who decides whether a group is (or is not) undemocratic Billy? As the current thinking seems to be that we cant leave it to the posties, can we ask you to do the vetting for us? I mean, we need someone who we can trust not to abuse this power, right?

Isn't the way that's least open to abuse to deliver ALL the mail and then let people make their own (as informed as possible) decision. I know that theres a danger that some folks may be swayed by unpalatable ideas but we have to place some trust in our electorate at some point. Otherwise why hold a general election? If poeple are unable to approach rational decisions then we might as well draw lots (or whatever they do in Florida)!

 

[Reginald]

Strangely enough, I have not yet had one. I suppose they think because they have a councilor in here already we are low priority.

Actually they get most of their support by spreading simple rumours. I have heard of a least 4 "historical" buildings that are about to be turned into "luxury" hotels for asylum seekers. All without the thinnest shred of evidence to support the claims.

I will probably find out that my postman IS the BNP candidate for the area. I would never have thought it of him though............mind you there is that small black mustache, that diagonal black hair and the non-regulation panzer grey bike he rides.

 

[Drooper]

It's not that we carnt trust the people with democracy, as much as to what extent we should trust those who are explicitly anti-democratic,

Socialists, anarchists, communists - all anti democratic to a greater or lesser extent. Should we not ban any and all literture etc from these groups, curtail thier civil rights?

 

[BillyTK]

Socialists, anarchists, communists - all anti democratic to a greater or lesser extent. Should we not ban any and all literture etc from these groups, curtail thier civil rights?

And liberals, tories, nationalists, aristos... the list is endless. Time to tear the system down and start again? Oops, that's anti-democratic...

 

[BillyTK]

But who decides whether a group is (or is not) undemocratic Billy?

Whoever has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, I guess (seeArticle 17 ).

As the current thinking seems to be that we cant leave it to the posties, can we ask you to do the vetting for us? I mean, we need someone who we can trust not to abuse this power, right?

No idea what that lot is in reference to, but please to carry on exercising your right to, uh, do whatever it is you're doing.

Isn't the way that's least open to abuse to deliver ALL the mail and then let people make their own (as informed as possible) decision. I know that theres a danger that some folks may be swayed by unpalatable ideas but we have to place some trust in our electorate at some point. Otherwise why hold a general election? If poeple are unable to approach rational decisions then we might as well draw lots (or whatever they do in Florida)!

Is this intended as a rebuttal of some point I've made?

 

[fsol]

I am more concerned that out of four registered voters in my house, only one of us recieved a postal ballot form this morning. Now that Royal Mail are making profits again, would it be too much to ask that they deliver the mail as well?

 

[Bjorn]

I'm not too comfortable with the idea of any particular person or group appointing themselves as guardians of democracy to any greater extent than we're all guardians of democracy... except for those who aren't. It's not that we carnt trust the people with democracy, as much as to what extent we should trust those who are explicitly anti-democratic ....

Anyway, here's some interesting thoughts on the issue although the texts read like they've been annoted directly from spoken presentations it's worthwhile reading, imo.

Unfortunately, when I read the texts I couldn't help 'listening' to them spoken in a snobby Tony Blair accent.

If some parties/groups are to be excluded from the democratic process, who is going to decide which groups?

Billy posted:

Whoever has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, I guess (seeArticle 17 ).

That's at least a place to start. Even if I had believed that the people of UK could make the mistake of giving the majority of their votes to an undemocratic party, it wouldn't be the mail workers business to decide.

Get the mail out.