Why are French 20odd year olds rioting on the streets over pension that won’t effect them for 40yrs?

History disagrees with you.

 

Violence usually is the only thing that achieves. Look through the industrial history of Britain and see that it was only violence and the threat of it that made change possible. If the working class had sat back and done nothing then we'd all still be disenfranchised, no unions, working weekends in the factories.

There is a ruling class in this country and others that do not want change, that do not want others to have power. If you think you can persuade them to do otherwise with just words then more fool you.

 

Doesn't make it right or acceptable in the 21st century. Ghandi achieved change through non violence. Nelson Mandela achieved far more as a victim/prisoner and a symbol of the evils of apartheid than early terrorism acts.
How does people trashing looting and burning their own neighbourhoods persuade Governments who resist change. It merely increases the them and US divide.
Anarchists and activists bent on violento insurrection come from other areas,whip up the masses to riot then disappear back to their own areas. Money that could be spent to improve areas goes instead to kitting out riot police, paying extra man hours to security forces repairing damage and rebuilding leaving the rich relatively unaffected. It is tax money that gets spent. Comparing 21st century society to 18th and 19th is nonsense. Those who rightly condemn despotic leaders like Putin aseem to be advocating violence as justifiableas long as it fits their agenda.

 

Daniel Q. Gillion, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania disagrees:

"I’ve studied protest from the 1950s to today, and I’ve looked at this across a host of different issues in which individuals can see change, whether electoral shifts or policies or donations. The reality is that—objectively examining protests—violent protest has a positive impact on political and policy change. Nonviolent protest brings awareness to an issue; violent protest brings urgency to an issue. It forces individuals to pay attention to these important discussions of race relations, but also prompts the international community to join in and say, “Hey, there’s something wrong there.” We see protests breaking out in Berlin and other cities throughout the world right now. So there is a positive, influential aspect of violent protest. Saying that, naturally I don’t condone violence, and I’m not pushing for individuals to engage in unlawful behavior, but if we are objectively examining the influence of protests, we’re being disingenuous to say that violent protest does not bring individuals to the table, that it does not lead to policy change. That simply isn’t true."

 

There are plenty of academica that argue otherwise.. example.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/06/10/are-peaceful-protests-more-effective-than-violent-ones/
I think part of the problem Is that violent riots often (usually? )target the wrong people.
If a riot was to start in your street and someone set fire to your car and since Emergency services were stretched and could not attend the Fire spread to your house. Or you had a shop that was looted and burned or a small local factory employing local people that was burned down putting them out of work you are saying the end justfies the means.
I am amazed that you say you are a legal professional yet condone and justify illegal acts of violence perpetrated by people often incited to riot by a minority of extremists.
The Terreur that follower the French Revolution caused more suffering and death of the population than the Revolution itself all committed by the Revolutionaries. If anarchists succeded in their aims and took control do you seriously believe society would benefit?'

 

The problem is - at least in the UK - that while strikes do eventually work despite the protestations of ministers, other forms of non-violent protest are being criminalized and clamped down on. If you can't legally protest peacefully on the streets, the only option available is to protest illegally - and if you are facing prison time for being there in the first place, you might as well have some rioting and looting while you are at it.

 

Gandhi achieved nothing with his non-violent protests, only after the war when the British found themselves without money to stop violent protests with an army of returning Indian Army veterans did they realise they would have to give up India.

 

As for the pension age, I'm conflicted. I'm early 50s in a wfh office job that I'm really enjoying. Baring health issues - and I've seen 2 peers with hearts attacks and 2 with a cancer diagnosis in the last 2-3 years, 2 of which have since died - there is nothing to stop me doing this job until I'm into my 70s. And tbh, the thought of retirement bores me so I'd probably volunteer at a charity as long as I could keep going after that. So, I'm probably going to work as long as possible and spend as much time as possible doing all the stuff I'd probably have done when I retired while I've got the money and energy to do it.

Saying that, I'm getting aches and pains with age and know if I worked in a more physical job I would be looking for a way out. I can understand why a builder, or a binman might want to get out much younger.

As often though, the problem is the demographics in the country. There are too many people not working - around 50% are active in the job market and have to support the other 50% (roughly 20% kids, 20% retired, 10% unable to work) through taxation. As the population ages, the number retired increases putting more burden on the workers. Immigration is needed to fill the missing gaps and keep expanding the economy to pay for stuff, but the older generation generally* vote against immigration and for an increased pension. Any politician that is honest with them would be voted out so they end up with liars promising them the world...

*Recent polls show that under only a minority of under-65s will vote Tory, making most of their vote in the retirement category.

 

I'm in a similar position to you Scoff, early fifties office job wfh, but although I like what I do, I don't want to keep doing it. There are loads of other things I'd prefer to do, none of which will earn me money. I am the king of hobbies.

I've always put into my pension right from the start of my career (and I always encourage others to do the same no matter what salary or wage they are on, it's free money) so why should I work on and on until illness takes me.

What I might do is go part time, earn enough to pay the weekly bills and do something for the soul, work for a charity or some other job where you can give something back to the community.

 

I dont think other peoples comments are nonsense. I think they're valid and while you may disagree and state an alternative point of view which is similarly valid you should reflect on that. Your comparison with Gandhi wad a good one and it highlighted the many different tactics that can be employed. Peaceful non-cooperation is one. Violence is another. And, while I also abhor violence as you seem to do I can still recognise that it can serve a purpose. We could discuss the IRA as well and debate the effect of their violence on the peace process if you like...

 

?? How on Earth does looting your corner shop, newsagents or factory target the Government or organisation responsible? Again, 'illegal' protesting is justified so long as it does not cause injury to others or destroy ordinary people's livelihoods.
I extend that to the idiots who glue themselves to motorways or block bridges and roads preventing emergency vehicles from timely intervention in accidents fires and medical emergencies. Millions of pounds lost to the economy later due to their stupidity they have achieved nothing except alienate most of the public against a legitimate cause.

The miners' so called 'riots' like Orgreave were totally different in that they were defending themselves against politically motivated Met police brutality and the violence was directed solely at their attackers. They did not, from what I can recall, at any time, rampage through the streets destroying local community businesses or property or civilians.

 

FFS. OK so even if you condone violence where and who do you target? Again explain to me how arguing that destroying your local community infrastructure, local businesses , individuals cars and property, and causing injury and possibly deaths achieves anything worthwhile. Initiating violence to achieve an end is wrong plain and simple.

 

I dont condone violence. I think it makes an impact that's all. Governments have to deal with it on a more urgent level. So yes there are lots of nasty effects on innocents when there's violent protest but I'm not saying there aren't. Dont know what the FFS was for by the way. Perhaps you can elucidate.

 

You can put your point across without being rude and disrespectful to others.

 

I'm afraid he does that a lot and its one reason I had a break from here a few months back. Ridicule and belittlement were not good for me at the time and he and some others dont stop and think how their words and tone impact other people who, after all, are Barnsley fans. I've made gaffs and gone over the top but when I've calmed down I've said 'sorry'. I think Tekky did sort of say sorry to me after my absence which was good of him but we should all think BEFORE we post really. Me included.

 

Sorry, The 'you' was admittedly ambiguous. It should have said 'one' as it was not meant to state you personally were condoning violence. As regards FFS I aplogise it was frustration that should have been targeted elsewhere namely a certain post I had just read that contained the following..." If you can't legally protest peacefully on the streets, the only option available is to protest illegally - and if you are facing prison time for being there in the first place, you might as well have some rioting and looting while you are at it."
Nevertheless I strongly disagree that impact on innocents is legitimate collateral damage. The negative impact of riots is immediate and clear. The positive results aimed for is often not forthcoming.

Saying resorting to violence is a valid point of view does not IMO reserve 'respect'. Furthermore the general trend of this thread indicates there is something very worrying about the attitudes of a small number of posters on here. If all you can draw on and comment about in this thread is me being 'Disrespectful' to a poster (albeit I aimed that expletive, borne out of frustration, at the wrong poster for which I apologised) then that says a lot about you.


Do you, or don't you, condone violence to achieve political aims in a democracy?

 

Thanks for clearing things up as best you can. Ta. I do think you get too 'angry' at times mate. You're texting fellow Barnsley fans you know.... There are nuances in this argument and its not clear cut. I dont think anyone on here thinks that violence is a 'good' thing per se. I dont, but in my view it IS a tactic that can get results. Not nice, gets out of control etc etc... But it can get results and make governments do something. My opinion and you may disagree and think violence is in no way justifiable. I would disagree with you to a point and suggest its 'understandable' and can have positive consequences even though I hate violence myself

 

I have messaged you

 

No he can't

 

I did consider rewording it