I am just wondering, Beanz. Do you think violence is ever a neccesary means of trying to achieve political objectives? I sometimes go to the historical museums out here and the occupation by the Japanese is well documented. It was obviously a very harsh occupation and not like the subtle occupation that you have with the EU. In the case of Greece though it is a very harsh and brutal occupation and they have no ability to control their finances, but what I am asking is do you think it is always wrong to try and force change through violent means? I brought up the museums here because there are large statues of people who fought occupation and in many instances these people killed others and likely killed innocent people in trying to do that too. In the museum though these people are considered patriots and heroic figures for resisting occupation.

In terms of the EU, people have never had the ability to express if they wanted to have a political union with Europe. It was only ever suppposed to be an economic bridge. Yet by stealth it became more political and more and more rules and regulation were brought in without the will of the people ever being brought up. Borders were opened and millions of people came in and again there was no consultation with the general population. It was a kind of long drawn out occupation. Done in a very clever and somewhat subtle way obviously.

What happened to the politician was obviously very tragic and somewhat pointless considering a referendum was finally introduced, but at the time I thought of situations around the world where people with no voice would join with others and try and fight for their cause. Most of the time the occupiers call them terrorists, but if in the rare instance they win, they become patriots or freedom fighters. When I hear someone like Dia make the case he did above, I hear someone that feels like he has been occupied and not listened to and his anger seems quite valid to me. The person who killed Cox seems to be someone with mental health problems, but who also felt that his country had been occupied. In the past I think you said it was being an apologist for murder, but I am not so sure it is. It's just another way of thinking about something.

I think you are someone who would fight for something you believe in, so I just wonder what you think the line is or how you would even define those lines. I am just curious as I am not sure what I think about it either, I find it quite complicated.