Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Dow was threatened with imprisonment for contempt of court for pursuing a defamatory public campaign against the leadership of a university that had the temerity to fail a piece of his work. In his head, he is being hounded and persecuted by the agents of a fascist, monarchist authority, when actually he is a bloke who sits in his pants looking after a slightly eccentric website. To suggest that he is oppressed and persecuted in the sense that mandela was is, I am sorry to say, just risible nonsense.

that's how it looks from your side and your point of view - no different to how Mandela ideas and actions looked dependent on a person's point of view.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that history gets to be the *real* judge of such things by how they pan out in the long run. If the sort of state that Dow wants was to come about, then it's unlikely that the view of what's happened to him will be as simple as you're seeing it as at this moment, because so very many of our laws are framed within and operated by the context we have now.

Just because things operate by a certain set of rules right now which causes you (and me) to see things in the way you currently do, doesn't mean that those rules will always exist or the view of things which is led by the current rules will remain unchanged.

It's foolish to believe that everything would stay the same in the changed situation.

[eFestivals]

Persecuted because his organisation bombed government buildings, planted mines and killed people? He was persecuted by state authorities alright, no doubt there, but not because of that.

Strange thread. The South Africa/Scotland comparisons in particular.

It's not so strange. The view of his political ideas (colour equality) and his actions to try and bring that about is framed by all people by their own ideas of whether colour equality is a good thing and what might be acceptable actions in pursuing that ideal.

In the eighties the likes of Thatcher publicly condemned him as simply a terrorist, and that view had wide support within the UK - which seems very surprising, almost impossible, in the context of today's views.

I'm simply pointing out that the same situation exists around Dow. While you (and me) might not see any worth in what he's doing and why, a revised view in the light of changed circumstances is far from impossible.

[eFestivals]

Oh yes, of course. He was imprisoned as a convicted terrorist. He was persecuted because of his race and membership of the ANC

So you don't think that people within the UK are persecuted for having unfashionable ideas?

Try telling that to Scargill.

Or even the people camped on the steps of St Pauls.

Edited December 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

.... or even Michael Eavis with his evil smelly hippie festival that people used to get sacked from jobs for attending.

[fred quimby]

Just because things operate by a certain set of rules right now which causes you (and me) to see things in the way you currently do, doesn't mean that those rules will always exist or the view of things which is led by the current rules will remain unchanged.

[eFestivals]

You can say that about any view though.

yup - because it's true for everything but the unchanging.

Oh and should we start to oranise the concerts for Free Peter Dow

I think things should kick off with a record by Jerry Dammers.

[abdoujaparov]

So you don't think that people within the UK are persecuted for having unfashionable ideas?

Try telling that to Scargill.

Or even the people camped on the steps of St Pauls.

[eFestivals]

Neil...

I have watched both the episoides you suggested... So go on, how am I a leech....

Going off that program, and given my family incomes are in the top 10% bracket, I pay a LOT more into the system than I take out... So I am confused... I am sure you will set me straight...

Any 'confusion' I might be suffering is due to inconsistent info you have posted. Previous posts of yours would not have you in the top 10% bracket.

So if you think I've talked bollocks to you, it's only as a result of your own bollocks.

[eFestivals]

show me where I said that...you'll struggle

I have no doubt that people are persecuted in the UK for having "dangerous" or unfashionable ideas. It may even have happened to me

Well, however nuts you might see Dow's doings, it's certainly the case that they're unfashionable, as well as dangerous to the on-going existence of certain institutions and people - and those institutions and people have used the power of their positions back onto Dow.

One view of all that might be that he's brought it all on himself by stupid (or whatever) behaviour - but that's not the only view that can be taken, and future circumstances might lessen how much they're seen as stupid.

[abdoujaparov]

Well, however nuts you might see Dow's doings, it's certainly the case that they're unfashionable, as well as dangerous to the on-going existence of certain institutions and people - and those institutions and people have used the power of their positions back onto Dow.

One view of all that might be that he's brought it all on himself by stupid (or whatever) behaviour - but that's not the only view that can be taken, and future circumstances might lessen how much they're seen as stupid.

[eFestivals]

Outside of my family income... My business also contributes Corporation Tax, Employers National Insurance and VAT revenue...

So again, how am I leeching ?

As far as I remember, the graph that Robinson used was one of income tax only - so those other parts aren't of relevance to what I said within the context that you'd expect to earn similar in another job.

If you want to include all of those other parts, then it would be similarly fair to include all of the things that any worker's work earns towards - such as company profits, high wages for the bosses, etc. After all, no boss can earn (say) £1M a year without the workers doing the work to create the money for his wages.

[eFestivals]

Yes, his views are unfashionable. They're about as dangerous to anyone as a fart in a thunderstorm, but hey ho.

You only see them as not-dangerous because you also see them as ideas that have zero chance of success.

Were they to have success, they're certainly dangerous to the continuation of certain institutions and people, at least in their current format.

What I dont see is Dow being oppressed or persecuted as a result of his ideas. I see him conducting a defamatory campaign against a universityu and that institution going to law, with some justification, to seek to get him stopped. All the rest seems to me to be largely a fantasy.

Well, his ideas are that that Uni has done things wrong in particular ways. You see it differently because you don't hold his views.

The exact same logical scenario (the logical scenario, not the exact same circumstances) existed around Mandela.

Surely you can see that? You don't need to share his views to see that.

Just who is using their power to persecute Dow?

The Uni that went to law to try and stop him, as one example.

You don't see it as persecution because you obviously feel that that Uni has some sort of right to take that action against him.

Were I to re-read the stuff about what happened to him I might well agree with your take on that (it's a long time since I read them, they're not stored in my memory, and I don't feel they're worth my time to re-read), but it's still the case that with the view on things that Dow has himself it's persecution due to him not accepting how things are.

What is and isn't persecution is fully subjective. It can only ever be that way.

[eFestivals]

It was for income tax only... But you was using the show to beat me with...

.... and using your posts to beat you with.

I can hardly been blamed as wrong when you've chosen to give false information on every other occasion by this one, can I? I've only had your lies to work my statement from.

Turned out to be a bit of toothless tiger... Well actually, it had teeth, but they where aimed at your bullshit statements and actually backed me up...

Well done...

"bullshit statements" caused by your own bullshit. The smart man is one that can reconcile the cause and effect.

[eFestivals]

What bullshit posts ?

what you've previously said about your income has had you being short of being in the top 10% of earners that you now claim to be a part of.

[abdoujaparov]

You only see them as not-dangerous because you also see them as ideas that have zero chance of success.

Were they to have success, they're certainly dangerous to the continuation of certain institutions and people, at least in their current format.

[eFestivals]

Like I said... Its only you either not listening properly, or understanding properly...

Maybe you are thinking about the 9 months my wife was on maternity leave... Obviously she got next to nothing during that period and only my income was coming in plus SMP...

Before that we earn't more... So the confusion is only yours...

I'm not talking about your wife, the comment was about YOUR income.... or do you think that leeching off your wife makes you not a leech?

And the info I'm working from is what you said around the change to child benefit, which certainly didn't put you in the top 10% of earners. Someone who changes what they say to suit every situation is always going to be indisputably right. Congratulations, everyone's a bullshitter but you.

[abdoujaparov]

I don't leech off my wife... and she didn't leech off me when my income was higher... We are in a partnership you odd ball...

[eFestivals]

But the danger posed by anything is partly a product of the chance of it succeeding. Betty is not going to be overthrown by a man in his pants in Aberdeen posting on his website or parading around in a hiomemade uniform. The reality is that he poses no danger whatsoever

While I agree with that to a large extent, not everyone does. After all, that Uni wouldn't have bothered with legal action if he was having no effect.

No, I just dont see it. The parallel just doesnt exist. Mandela was the victim of a racist, oppressive state. There is nothing he could do to avoid that repression. It was a product of his ethnicity. Dow fell out with his university and they took him to court - off the back of which he appears to have constructed a persecution fantasy

"appears to". Yep, that's the appearance to someone who doesn't accept that there's anything to his doings.

Mandela was only the victim of a racist state if a person accepts the idea of racism. Similarly, Dow is only the victim of a monarchist state to someone who accepts that the monarchy oppresses.

Like it or not - cos it's repeating Dow - the laws of this country certainly do oppress republicans. There's a huge number of laws that are framed with privilege to the monarch and no rights for those of a different view.

An easy example is a republican taking up their legitimately won seat to Parliament has to swear allegiance to the monarch - thus proving that we don't operated the democracy that we like to kid ourselves that we do.

Much of what Peter says might be nuts in your or my view, but there's also substance within it.

I agree, up to a point, that what is persecution is subjective. But that brings us full circle back to the argument that some subjective views may be influenced by the state of their mental health....

Persecution is ALWAYS subjective. It can't be other than that.

And yes, it might be influenced by the state of their mental health. But it's still always the case that if someone feels that others are out to get them and those others REALLY ARE out to get them, that they will display all of symptoms of mental health-caused paranoid.

People ARE out to get Dow - he has the newspaper articles to prove it ... which is a hell of a lot better proof than you relying on symptoms which prove fuck all.

====

I reckon you're probably mistaking where I'm coming from with all this. If I had to plump for one side of things, I'd probably have a similar view to you (tho probably not to the same extent). I just think that it's not too smart to dismiss everything as that, because parts you're quick to label as paranoia or mental health issues are as real as you drawing breath while you read these words.

[eFestivals]

I don't leech off my wife... and she didn't leech off me when my income was higher... We are in a partnership you odd ball...

PMSL ... so someone drawing dole can't ever be in a partnership with the state that creates the dole that they can draw?

It's nothing different, the only thing that's different is where the lines are drawn.

As for you and your wife, care to show me where I said "you and your wife are leeches"? No?

But again, based on what you've said previously, and being treated as individuals, both you and your wife are leeches. But no doubt you'll again say that you lied about those incomes in the past.

If you think I have lied at any point then please do post the post...

if you think I can be bothered you're as mistaken as you thinking I've forgotten what you've previously posted.

[abdoujaparov]

My friend is quite proud to be a kept women... So the offensiveness of the comment is personal to you and your wife and not shared by everyone...

Thicker skin ?

[jump]

_{I think Petey is more like Bin Laden than Mandela, lazing around all day long and occasionally getting up to make a web video about killing the Royal Family/The West in the name of their beliefs.}

[abdoujaparov]

Like I give a shit one way or the other... Deary me...

[kaosmark2]

How many threads devolve into handbags between the usual suspects? There was a moderately interesting, albeit one-sided, political debate going on.

[Peter Dow]

Peter Dow - there are some positions available I see working at Aberdeen council.

http://www.aberdeenc...ne/default.aspx

Any reason why you couldn't apply for one of the admin posts, or something?

There's an opening in the local crem that doesn't need any real experience.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Peter any chance we could take a look at this ....

Edited December 6, 2011 by Peter Dow