Should The West worry about a repeat of 1917 Bolshevik Revolution?

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Adolf Hitler was surely the personification of evil. For that we should always be on guard against fascism.

But what about Joseph Stalin? The 1917 Bolshevik revolution rearing it's ugly head in modern times? Are we on guard against communism with the same fervor and paranoia?

Let's remember that Hitler banned books and committed horrible atrocities and genocides....but so did Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.

[Beanz]

On a day like today when Priti Patel a repeat offender when it comes to choosing what laws to break and obey, attempts to create an authoritarian police state where are silenced by draconian state sanctioned penalties, you are fretting about what ifs?

From the Mirror - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...t-law-23725500

The Bill contains a string of measures to toughen up the police response after Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matters protests were accused of disrupting public life.
They include making it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” on a person without reasonable excuse, with up to 10 years’ jail in theory if judges choose. Measures also include imposing up to 10 years’ jail on people who vandalise statues - up from three years.
The Bill will also create new offences against obstructing the road or using a loudspeaker at the gates of Parliament.
Police and legal figures have warned this could pose a threat to democracy. Sir Peter Fahy, former Greater Manchester Police chief constable told Times Radio there was a "real danger" that rushed legislation could make the job of the police "more difficult", adding: "People need to be really worried about this."
He said: "If we've learned one thing this weekend, it's the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to have a voice is fundamental to our democracy, and particularly British democracy.
"This weekend has shown the crucial importance of the right to protest, and you've got to be really wary of more legislation being rushed through just because certain politicians didn't like certain protests during the summer."
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers, warned the Bill could "hugely expand" police powers to "allow them to stop protests which would cause 'serious unease' and create criminal penalties for people who cause 'serious annoyance'."
He added: "This would effectively put the current situation where Covid regulations have given police too much power over our free speech rights on a permanent footing."


What are the most controversial parts of the Bill?

Police can impose more conditions on protests

Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” nearby.
The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times - a police officer can take “such conditions as appear necessary” to that officer “to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.”
The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard.
It will be up to the Home Secretary - currently Priti Patel - to decide the definition of “serious disruption”.


Serious annoyance’ will carry up to 10 years’ jail

Clause 59 will axe the ‘common law’ definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament.
It will make it a crime to “intentionally or recklessly” cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse.
Offenders will get up to a year’s jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases.
The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. “This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden,” the Home Office said.
But there is not a clear list of “reasonable excuses” - the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities.
And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest.
Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.” How will “serious annoyance” be interpreted by police?
Most loudhailers will be banned outside Parliament

Clause 57 will hugely expand the “controlled area” outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned.
Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law.
But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment.
Those who disobey can be fined up to £5,000.
A similar move was recommended by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs.
However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farage’s anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the People’s Vote marches against Brexit.
In an open letter today they say: “As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an 'inconvenience'. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.”


Clause 60 has already been dubbed the ‘Steve Bray’ law, after the man who spent years shouting ‘Stop Brexit!’ at Parliament.
It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid “disruption or impact”.
This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.”
But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this “serious disruption”.
One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to £2,500. Someone who “incites” the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: “It's a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter 'government', that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out.
“He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.”
Defacing a statue will carry up to 10 years’ jail

Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the “emotional and symbolic value” of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse.
The Tories are doing this in a ‘culture war’ after statues including Winston Churchill’s were attacked or damaged with graffiti.
No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people who’ve been murdered.
But that’s not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from Labour, who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women.
People in protest camps can be jailed for three months

Clause 60 will create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.
This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their “residing” is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land.
Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing “significant disruption”, or even if they haven’t caused disruption yet but it is deemed “likely” in future.
If they refuse, they can be fined up to £2,500 or jailed for up to three months.
Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads.
A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be “an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms”, adding: “For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.”
Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.

[walrus]

On a day like today when Priti Patel a repeat offender when it comes to choosing what laws to break and obey, attempts to create an authoritarian police state where are silenced by draconian state sanctioned penalties, you are fretting about what ifs?

From the Mirror - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...t-law-23725500

The Bill contains a string of measures to toughen up the police response after Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matters protests were accused of disrupting public life.
They include making it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” on a person without reasonable excuse, with up to 10 years’ jail in theory if judges choose. Measures also include imposing up to 10 years’ jail on people who vandalise statues - up from three years.
The Bill will also create new offences against obstructing the road or using a loudspeaker at the gates of Parliament.
Police and legal figures have warned this could pose a threat to democracy. Sir Peter Fahy, former Greater Manchester Police chief constable told Times Radio there was a "real danger" that rushed legislation could make the job of the police "more difficult", adding: "People need to be really worried about this."
He said: "If we've learned one thing this weekend, it's the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to have a voice is fundamental to our democracy, and particularly British democracy.
"This weekend has shown the crucial importance of the right to protest, and you've got to be really wary of more legislation being rushed through just because certain politicians didn't like certain protests during the summer."
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers, warned the Bill could "hugely expand" police powers to "allow them to stop protests which would cause 'serious unease' and create criminal penalties for people who cause 'serious annoyance'."
He added: "This would effectively put the current situation where Covid regulations have given police too much power over our free speech rights on a permanent footing."


What are the most controversial parts of the Bill?

Police can impose more conditions on protests

Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” nearby.
The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times - a police officer can take “such conditions as appear necessary” to that officer “to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.”
The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard.
It will be up to the Home Secretary - currently Priti Patel - to decide the definition of “serious disruption”.


Serious annoyance’ will carry up to 10 years’ jail

Clause 59 will axe the ‘common law’ definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament.
It will make it a crime to “intentionally or recklessly” cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse.
Offenders will get up to a year’s jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases.
The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. “This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden,” the Home Office said.
But there is not a clear list of “reasonable excuses” - the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities.
And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest.
Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.” How will “serious annoyance” be interpreted by police?
Most loudhailers will be banned outside Parliament

Clause 57 will hugely expand the “controlled area” outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned.
Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law.
But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment.
Those who disobey can be fined up to £5,000.
A similar move was recommended by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs.
However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farage’s anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the People’s Vote marches against Brexit.
In an open letter today they say: “As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an 'inconvenience'. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.”


Clause 60 has already been dubbed the ‘Steve Bray’ law, after the man who spent years shouting ‘Stop Brexit!’ at Parliament.
It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid “disruption or impact”.
This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.”
But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this “serious disruption”.
One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to £2,500. Someone who “incites” the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: “It's a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter 'government', that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out.
“He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.”
Defacing a statue will carry up to 10 years’ jail

Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the “emotional and symbolic value” of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse.
The Tories are doing this in a ‘culture war’ after statues including Winston Churchill’s were attacked or damaged with graffiti.
No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people who’ve been murdered.
But that’s not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from Labour, who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women.
People in protest camps can be jailed for three months

Clause 60 will create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.
This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their “residing” is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land.
Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing “significant disruption”, or even if they haven’t caused disruption yet but it is deemed “likely” in future.
If they refuse, they can be fined up to £2,500 or jailed for up to three months.
Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads.
A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be “an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms”, adding: “For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.”
Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.

Someone has a lot of time on their hands. I do agree though how dare Brock write something like this on this particular day with this particular thing happened. Had he waited till 12:01am I would have found it acceptable

[Beanz]

Today. This is a bill that will restrict everyone in the United Kingdom's free speech being rushed through Parliament ... TODAY.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Communist Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known, but most experts have determined Stalin’s rule amounted to some 43 million deaths. This includes 19 million Soviet troops and civilians. If you don't include the Soviet troops and Soviet civilians, Joseph Stalin killed 24 million people.

Think about that.

or....The Great Leap Forward & The Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao: the Great Leap Forward turned Mao into “one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 46 million people between 1958 and 1962. It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that destroys earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between 3 and 4 million victims were tortured to death, often for the slightest infraction.”

[Beanz]

Nobody is saying otherwise but I am living in a country with the most corrupt far right Government in its history, that is today suggesting the home Secretary (Patel) gets to ban any kind of protest or dissent or expression of free speech, SHE decides is not acceptable.

No legal or parliamentary scrutiny. HER decision.

And you are living in a country with a very centrist Government that in most places in the world, especially here, would never be condidered even left wing let alone communist. Democrats are classic neo-Conservative

So please don't pretend I am the one trying to minimise or sanitise the horrors of Lenin etc.

If you want to treat it so flippantly to pretend that not printing Dr Seuss books or whatever daft nonsense you think is the thin end of the wedge is the same thing, then you might want to re-examine your position.

[walrus]

Today. This is a bill that will restrict everyone in the United Kingdom's free speech being rushed through Parliament ... TODAY.

Dude you been running around here saying you won’t act civil and berate those who say things you don’t like for years, now you are champion free speech? Ffs next you will be parading around for mental health treatment after berating it for years, at least be consistent

[Beanz]

Today. This is a bill that will restrict everyone in the United Kingdom's free speech being rushed through Parliament ... TODAY.

Dude you been running around here saying you won’t act civil and berate those who say things you don’t like for years, now you are champion free speech? Ffs next you will be parading around for mental health treatment after berating it for years, at least be consistent

Pointing out what a trouble making wanker you can be does nothing to impinge on your free speech does it? I have always championed the right to protest from putting my boots on the ground to campaigning for fellow journalists imprisoned around the world. That is pretty consistant.

And nowhere have I minimised the importance of mental health. People like yourself being involved in that treatment when you take part in gaslighting here and the widespread ignorance and rush to medicate everyone is a different thing altogether.

If you really gave a damn about people's mental health you would display a liitle more empathy and not be so quick to make sweeping judgements and generalisations. If I have mistaken you trying to genuinely contribute something positive then I am all ears.

I mean I don't recall once ever accusing you of being nuts or being schizo etc but it seems your goto as a way to shut people down.

[Beanz]

Let's get back on track and address Brocks thread and concerns.He asks

Are we on guard against communism with the same fervor and paranoia?

I would argue that yes we should never be apathetic because that threat is real but not from what you guys call 'leftists' or communism.

Lenin and Stalin were proponents of authoritarian nationalism and that attitude is more fully realised in the dictatorial style of far right and alt right narcassists like Trump and Johnson.

Lenin replaced the workers Marx wanted to empower with the Communist party. He took advantage of the fact that 80% of Russia were illiterate to justify a political class that ignored the principles Marx had envisioned

Lenin in simple terms replaced the dictatorship of class with the dictatorship of party. The Communist Party made up of out of touch intellectuals.

Johnsons alt right Tories are very similar in some ways but are full of that aristocratic class who are just as out of touch and see nothing wrong with that dictatorial style in which like China's rich families and establishment figures like Trump, they steal billions from the country in the name of nationalism and give to their selves, friends and families.

They are also controlled by the media elite, people like Murdoch and the Barclay brothers with which they control the people and direct the workers anger toward immigration and even other poor or working class people to maintain that stranglehold.

[walrus]

Today. This is a bill that will restrict everyone in the United Kingdom's free speech being rushed through Parliament ... TODAY.

Dude you been running around here saying you won’t act civil and berate those who say things you don’t like for years, now you are champion free speech? Ffs next you will be parading around for mental health treatment after berating it for years, at least be consistent

Pointing out what a trouble making wanker you can be does nothing to impinge on your free speech does it? I have always championed the right to protest from putting my boots on the ground to campaigning for fellow journalists imprisoned around the world. That is pretty consistant.

And nowhere have I minimised the importance of mental health. People like yourself being involved in that treatment when you take part in gaslighting here and the widespread ignorance and rush to medicate everyone is a different thing altogether.

If you really gave a damn about people's mental health you would display a liitle more empathy and not be so quick to make sweeping judgements and generalisations. If I have mistaken you trying to genuinely contribute something positive then I am all ears.

I mean I don't recall once ever accusing you of being nuts or being schizo etc but it seems your goto as a way to shut people down.

Ok what are you hiding. After years of trashing the mental health system you are trying to make a buck of it now aren’t you? What kind of bullshit are you slinging. You call me a cunt regularly out of the blue, but you hang on to the shit I say. Hypocrite. You ever work with a schizophrenic off his meds? I have. But I see this goes beyond that. Ah, your humor, it’s keeping me young as well

[Beanz]

Today. This is a bill that will restrict everyone in the United Kingdom's free speech being rushed through Parliament ... TODAY.

Dude you been running around here saying you won’t act civil and berate those who say things you don’t like for years, now you are champion free speech? Ffs next you will be parading around for mental health treatment after berating it for years, at least be consistent

Pointing out what a trouble making wanker you can be does nothing to impinge on your free speech does it? I have always championed the right to protest from putting my boots on the ground to campaigning for fellow journalists imprisoned around the world. That is pretty consistant.

And nowhere have I minimised the importance of mental health. People like yourself being involved in that treatment when you take part in gaslighting here and the widespread ignorance and rush to medicate everyone is a different thing altogether.

If you really gave a damn about people's mental health you would display a liitle more empathy and not be so quick to make sweeping judgements and generalisations. If I have mistaken you trying to genuinely contribute something positive then I am all ears.

I mean I don't recall once ever accusing you of being nuts or being schizo etc but it seems your goto as a way to shut people down.

Ok what are you hiding. After years of trashing the mental health system you are trying to make a buck of it now aren’t you? What kind of bullshit are you slinging. You call me a cunt regularly out of the blue, but you hang on to the shit I say. Hypocrite. You ever work with a schizophrenic off his meds? I have. But I see this goes beyond that. Ah, your humor, it’s keeping me young as well

How am i making a buck out of it? and to accuse me of hiding something is not only offensive but ridiculous considering how open i have always been on here. If anything I overshare stuff.

Maybe for once, entertain the idea that I am not the angry bogeyman you invented to make yourself feel better about hating me. I am the son of an Anthropologist who often made his living as a Psychotherapist, so I do not have a problem with professional mental health care, but you were just some guy working in a warehouse that suddenly overnight announced he was a medical expert, so I don't really know where you are coming from with all this fake outrage.

When i was support worker for students with mental and physical health problems that was for you and your pals something you all ridiculed. I am not ridiculing people who work in mental health care, just questioning how somebody as callous and mean as you are, who has for years gaslighted me here can pretend to have any kind of empathy?

Maybe you are a completely different person offline. You seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince us that you are. Look at you over the last few days trolling me here and joining in with questioning everything about me. Silly things like what time i post, and whether you both think i work hard enough, is he really a carer? can be trusted not to lie etc?

Why would I lie to odd strange men on the internet, who pretend to be gay and who have both refused to me talk face to face? It makes no sense.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[Beanz]

If you do not want to work with somebody who supposedly suffers schizophrenia when he does not want to take his medication, then don't do it. Nobody is forcing you. Apparently you are an adult and you chose to do it and are well paid for it so i don't understand why you would think that I should praise you for it. I understand how that kind of work is hard and difficult but you don't really seem to care about upsetting anyone when they disagree with you and then expect a pat on the back from people like me that you have for years accused of being a pathological liar. For many, many people that would drive them over the edge, and the responsibility for that would be on you and your pals here who joined in.

[X]

Fucking hell, 10 years for ‘serious annoyance’ ........ that’s most of you lot banged up for the next decade

[walrus]

If you do not want to work with somebody who supposedly suffers schizophrenia when he does not want to take his medication, then don't do it. Nobody is forcing you. Apparently you are an adult and you chose to do it and are well paid for it so i don't understand why you would think that I should praise you for it. I understand how that kind of work is hard and difficult but you don't really seem to care about upsetting anyone when they disagree with you and then expect a pat on the back from people like me that you have for years accused of being a pathological liar. For many, many people that would drive them over the edge, and the responsibility for that would be on you and your pals here who joined in.

I don’t even fucking now what the hell you are trying to say but it makes no sense

[Beanz]

Just come off the phone to my little brother who spent most of his childhood when not in India living in a caravan traveling across Europe and the UK. Our relatives still live on a site in Ireland that isn't even on the map. So yeah...thanks Priti for your focusing on the important stuff

What a twat.