Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Just how is Condi able to resist?

Edited December 6, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Hey Dow - ever shot any of your friends by accident?

[Peter Dow]

Some re-evaluation isa neededf here.

Peter, if these are so productive,

Edited December 6, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

I really am chuffed I work and pay taxes to give Peter Dow the opportunity

Edited December 6, 2011 by Peter Dow

[russycarps]

I am not repeating your provocative description of what you are asking to look at because I am not allowed to comment appropriately about your provocative description because of a court order.

In short, no you can't take a look at that. I haven't even got it published on line. I haven't given that particular area of science a second thought since the court case.

For me now, it is besides the point.

My point is we academics need to have academic freedom - it is good for us and it is good for the economy and we the people need civil liberties to defend academic freedom where it is under threat.

Since we don't have civil liberties and that is of more general significance, the political issue of the civil liberties deficit is the issue I am concerned with today.

It is not just academic freedom we don't have. We don't even have the freedom to complain when the police give a firearms certificate to an unstable, unreliable person because of defamation laws in Scotland which are the same I think as libel laws in England.

You should already know everything you need to know about the lack of freedom to publish in this country.

You should know that a judge can stop people publishing or punish them if they do publish against a court order.

You should know that this kingdom is not a free country.

What you need to know is that there is no real freedom in this country. Whatever your issue of concern is, if one of the Queen's judges doesn't agree with you, you have no rights to speak out to complain because if you dare to then you cannot stop yourself being imprisoned for life by the courts and the vast majority of the legal profession are happy with "no freedom" for us because they care nothing for freedom and only care about their big fat fees.

When you learn about the lack of freedom that should be enough for you to want the government sacked, parliament dismissed, judges arrested, the entire legal profession discredited and the Queen and royal family sent into exile for denying the people freedom.

[fred quimby]

Well I have a sick note for "stress".

The "stress" was caused by the Jobcentre forcing me to apply for such jobs over a period of 20 years and having much of my quality time used up in such pointless applications. Applying for jobs is a mind-numbing soul-destroying job in itself. After doing this for many years, this Jobcentre required jumping through hoops to keep my benefit felt to me like "cruel and unusual punishment".

I simply could never agree to do or to apply for any such jobs and only applied for such jobs under duress, hating every single second of it.

I would like

• ( a ) to be allowed to go back to a convenient university to complete my science studies and gain qualifications for the jobs I really would like to do.

or

• ( b } given that (a) is disallowed, to campaign politically to change the government, law and the constitution so as to allow me to do (a). The political change may require a republican revolution but in any case my aim is to enable (a) for myself and for others similarly excluded because I think political action is the appropriate direction for a science student with an interest in student representation who has been unfairly excluded from university.

Therefore I consider answering the points and questions in this "Peter Dow" topic to be of greater political and social significance than Council administrator or crematorium assistant jobs.

Others can easily do those simpler jobs to be done but doing such jobs does not make us as a country, whether that country be Scotland or Britain, 1/3 richer overall as we would be if our per capita productive output was as high as the republic of the USA's is. The USA is richer because they use their scientists to do science; they do not give their scientists dumb jobs to do and waste their abilities.

Edited December 6, 2011 by fred quimby

[eFestivals]

Nail head hit

I'm sure lots said similar about Mandela, democracy in Egypt, democracy in Libya, democracy in Syria, and a million other political progressions too.

The sad fact is that without the likes of Peter Dow - with all of his faults - we'd be slaves with no paid holidays, no weekends, no NHS, no pensions, and anything else you value that you'd care to list.

The world is not as simple as the simple often see it - which is even sadder than that sad fact above.

[fred quimby]

I'm sure lots said similar about Mandela, democracy in Egypt, democracy in Libya, democracy in Syria, and a million other political progressions too.

The sad fact is that without the likes of Peter Dow - with all of his faults - we'd be slaves with no paid holidays, no weekends, no NHS, no pensions, and anything else you value that you'd care to list.

The world is not as simple as the simple often see it - which is even sadder than that sad fact above.

[eFestivals]

Failed uni man finds interment, rambles bollocks. and gives us the NHS.... Bollocks...

Give it up Neil...

Give what up? Give up pointing out the fact that if people took your completely passive attitude we get nowhere good ... in fact we get nowhere at all.

If you're happy with your lot - and you like to pretend that you are - then the likes of Dow or me couldn't and wouldn't bother you. So I suspect that you recognise your weaknesses, but rather than embrace them you prefer to bad-mouth others for your own failings.

You've recently posted that you support the idea of a republican Britain. So what have YOU done towards that that makes you a better person about republicanism than Dow? - who is at least trying, while you're not.

You like to say how much you think I like carping from the sidelines. That's you that is.

[Ed209]

I'm sure lots said similar about Mandela, democracy in Egypt, democracy in Libya, democracy in Syria, and a million other political progressions too.

The sad fact is that without the likes of Peter Dow - with all of his faults - we'd be slaves with no paid holidays, no weekends, no NHS, no pensions, and anything else you value that you'd care to list.

The world is not as simple as the simple often see it - which is even sadder than that sad fact above.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

Oh my - fucking hell!

Have you been on the sherry?

I don't need sherry to make my brain work, but perhaps you should try it for yourself.

So how do you think political progression happens then, and where history backs up that idea?

Do they come from the likes of Barry Fish, who believes that no one should ever break any law no matter how hideous? Do they come from spending every Saturday mindlessly shopping as your patriotic duty to the economy?

Or do they come out of the minds of free-thinking radicals, who push the envelope and are ridiculed for it until such time as that idea's time has come ... and then everyone dumbly pretends that everyone's always thought that way?

Once upon a time - less than 40 years ago - the idea of women being economically equal to men was considered laughable, blacks were considered subhuman, it was thought OK to rape someone if they were your wife, beating up gays was your patriotic duty, and paedophiles operated in the open without society's condemnation.

This country inhabited with only Barry Fish's would have this country still like that. It's the likes of Dow who are prepared to be ridiculed for their ideas who bring about the changes by putting ideas in front of you to cause you to think about them along with the pointing and laughing you do.

If you can't see the world for what it is then I feel sorry for you.

[eFestivals]

And if the country only had odd balls like you and Dow we would be bankrupt overnight...

To put yourself and him on the same level as a man like Mandela is laughable and questionably insane!

Your stupidity never ceases to astound me.

Where the fuck have I indicated that I'm putting myself on any level or even in what I've talked about?

And where the fuck have I said that Dow is on the same level as Mandela?

All I have done is highlighted that progression comes from the active thinkers *like* Dow (tho not necessarily Dow), and not from the passive such as you.

You might subscribe to some progressive ideas (tho even when you say you do, you normally prove with your words shortly afterwards that you don't ), but you're only able to do so because someone has planted those ideas in your otherwise unthinking mind.

Someone like Dow.

The only way a person gets to think thru ideas is to first become aware of an idea to think thru. The only way a person gets to reject an idea as unworkable or stupid is to first become aware of that idea to reject it.

Without that process, we stand still. Without the bad ideas none of us can reach a conclusion on what is a good one.

The world needs those people who you might consider a fool for you to make heroes out of others.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to see this. If you can't, you're living with the amoebas.

[fred quimby]

But Neil part of what Pete is saying is he only wants change so he can go back to Uni near him. Not sure that equates to Arab Spring.

you have been the one calling him a fruitcake. One day you may be proved wrong when spend dollors with Mr Dows face smiling out from it

[eFestivals]

But Neil part of what Pete is saying is he only wants change so he can go back to Uni near him. Not sure that equates to Arab Spring.

- it's a bit less ambitious, I agree.

But changes in political systems have benefits in all sorts of unexpected directions, and perhaps that'll be one of them. It's certainly a better outcome than Dow as this country's leader.

you have been the one calling him a fruitcake. One day you may be proved wrong when spend dollors with Mr Dows face smiling out from it

Yep, I think the detail of his ideas are nuts.

But different to some other opinions being expressed here, I don't think they're worthless. I believe that there is a wider value to them than some want to recognise.

[kaosmark2]

Your stupidity never ceases to astound me.

Where the fuck have I indicated that I'm putting myself on any level or even in what I've talked about?

And where the fuck have I said that Dow is on the same level as Mandela?

All I have done is highlighted that progression comes from the active thinkers *like* Dow (tho not necessarily Dow), and not from the passive such as you.

You might subscribe to some progressive ideas (tho even when you say you do, you normally prove with your words shortly afterwards that you don't ), but you're only able to do so because someone has planted those ideas in your otherwise unthinking mind.

Someone like Dow.

The only way a person gets to think thru ideas is to first become aware of an idea to think thru. The only way a person gets to reject an idea as unworkable or stupid is to first become aware of that idea to reject it.

Without that process, we stand still. Without the bad ideas none of us can reach a conclusion on what is a good one.

The world needs those people who you might consider a fool for you to make heroes out of others.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to see this. If you can't, you're living with the amoebas.

[eFestivals]

Uh, neither Scottish Independence nor Republicanism are exactly new ideas.... He's not exactly their source.

anti-racism was an idea around two hundred years old when the UK finally got around to enshrining it into law. Even then, when that finally happened, it wasn't an idea that was supported by the majority of the population.

If people don't push, nothing moves.

[fred quimby]

Uh, neither Scottish Independence nor Republicanism are exactly new ideas.... He's not exactly their source.

[russycarps]

can I just add, that in one of the videos we see footage of peter at home typing on his pc. And you know what, he doesnt have a rickety chair like us proletariats, he has a LEATHER ARM CHAIR for a computer chair! Yes, a comfy sofa-type chair.

I bet even the Queen doesnt type in such luxury

Edited December 7, 2011 by russycarps

[kaosmark2]

anti-racism was an idea around two hundred years old when the UK finally got around to enshrining it into law. Even then, when that finally happened, it wasn't an idea that was supported by the majority of the population.

If people don't push, nothing moves.

[kaosmark2]

can I just add, that in one of the videos we see footage of peter at home typing on his pc. And you know what, he doesnt have a rickety chair like us proletariats, he has a LEATHER ARM CHAIR for a computer chair! Yes, a comfy sofa-type chair.

I bet even the Queen doesnt type in such luxury

[eFestivals]

Really, anti-racism wasn't supported by the majority of the population? I can believe it wasn't supported by the majority of the WHITE population, but the population as a whole?

What I said was without doubt true. The non-white population at that time would have been less than 2% I reckon, so the view of non-whites would have had very little impact on the views of the country overall, and the fact that not a huge number of white people had even met non-white people meant that they were much more susceptible to the myths.

And if you have trouble believing just how racist this country was such a short while ago you'd have been astounded when it all kicked off around a court case at the number of men who were demanding the right to rape their wife and even more astounded at the number of women who wanted their husbands to have the right to rape them. I'm really not making this up!

Hindsight makes such things really really hard to believe.

I get your point, it's just the way you seemed to be suggesting Peter could be a visionary with a stupid vision, rather than a campaigner with a stupid campaign.

The point I'm making is that ideas like his always seem stupid until (if they ever are) they're accepted.

The view we have of ideas like his right now might not be how they're viewed in the future, no matter how nuts they might seem right at this moment. Only the future can show us how the view of them might change.

I probably think little different to you about what he's saying. I'm simply keeping an awareness that they might not always be thought of in that way, because 'right now' cannot give any insight into that future view.

[kaosmark2]

What I said was without doubt true. The non-white population at that time would have been less than 2% I reckon, so the view of non-whites would have had very little impact on the views of the country overall, and the fact that not a huge number of white people had even met non-white people meant that they were much more susceptible to the myths.

And if you have trouble believing just how racist this country was such a short while ago you'd have been astounded when it all kicked off around a court case at the number of men who were demanding the right to rape their wife and even more astounded at the number of women who wanted their husbands to have the right to rape them. I'm really not making this up!

Hindsight makes such things really really hard to believe.

[sifi]

As far as I'm aware Nelson Mandela was employed for long periods of time when he was fighting his cause, as a lawyer. Politicians get a mandate of the local population, and are essentially employed as an MP. What Dow is doing is unilaterally deciding that the taxpayer should fund his rantings on the internet. If I went up to a seven random people a week and demanded they gave me £20 each to sit around, I'll get slapped. This thread is in part the equivalent of that slap.

[eFestivals]

I was just wanting to emphasise that I don't see them as precisely 'his ideas', but ones he's absorbed and is campaigning for.

The wider ideas of a republic and Scottish independence aren't his of course, but much of the rest are uniquely his.

But whatever, the wider point that I've been trying to make here still holds true - that ideas need people pushing them to happen, and that it's only with the acceptance of an idea that the sense of that idea is able to be recognised.

As I've said, I don't credit his ideas as worth much - but I do admire him for holding to them and pushing for them, particularly against the ridicule he suffers for them (even from me).

We need many more of his type - tho (from my own perspective) hopefully with better ideas than he's managing. The likes of Barry Fish's approach where all laws are adhered to no matter how stupid or damaging you might find them is why we live in such a fucked up world.

[eFestivals]

Politicians get a mandate of the local population, and are essentially employed as an MP.

Or alternatively, they become the boyfriend of their to-be-minister landlord, and then get him to pass the cup around his mates using lies to ensure it gets filled.

What Dow is doing is unilaterally deciding that the taxpayer should fund his rantings on the internet.

Or worse still, get (ultimately) the taxpayer to fund their rantings in front of foreign dignitaries.

Or get the taxpayer to fund their not-open-to-public-applications 'research' jobs while they get far enough past pubity so they're acceptable for election.

If I went up to a seven random people a week and demanded they gave me £20 each to sit around, I'll get slapped.

as my words just above get to show, it fully depends how you go about asking them - or not bother asking them at all.

There's a lot that can be said to be wrong about what Dow is doing, but he's doing nothing different - tho at a far lesser cost - than what people will accept.

What Dow is doing is to his personal cost and not from-the-off for his financial benefit. There's a much greater honesty to his doings than what is widely taken as acceptable.

Edited December 7, 2011 by eFestivals