Saturday 23 June 2018

Melanie Shaw Update 22th June 2018

2 comments:

  1. The state of Britain regarding abuse:

    http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/abuse.htm

    Melanie Shaw child abuse survivor was born into abusive family, abused by foster parents, abused in 'care', abused in Beechwood childrens home Nottingham. Now brutalised for years by UK State to silence her and protect State Establishment child abusers. Please speak out for Mel
    https://twitter.com/briangukc/status/1010405136777269248

    Thank you for your e-mail of 4 September and 16 September to the Home Office regarding failure to protect children and the case of Melanie Shaw.
    http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/abuse.htm


    ReplyDelete
  2. John Stuart Mill on Liberty. We need to keep learning - apparently.

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

    "John Stuart Mill opens his essay by discussing the historical "struggle between authority and liberty,"[6] describing the tyranny of government, which, in his view, needs to be controlled by the liberty of the citizens. He divides this control of authority into two mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the "establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power."[7] Because society was—in its early stages—subjected to such turbulent conditions (i.e. small population and constant war), it was forced to accept rule "by a master."[7] However, as mankind progressed, it became conceivable for the people to rule themselves. Mill admits that this new form of society seemed immune to tyranny because "there was no fear of tyrannizing over self."[8] Despite the high hopes of the Enlightenment, Mill argues that the democratic ideals were not as easily met as expected. First, even in democracy, the rulers were not always the same sort of people as the ruled.[9] Second, there is a risk of a "tyranny of the majority" in which the many oppress the few who, according to democratic ideals, have just as much a right to pursue their legitimate ends.[9][10][11]

    In Mill's view, tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of government because it is not limited to a political function. Where one can be protected from a tyrant, it is much harder to be protected "against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling."[10] The prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society; thus there can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority. Mill's proof goes as follows: the majority opinion may not be the correct opinion. The only justification for a person's preference for a particular moral belief is that it is that person's preference. On a particular issue, people will align themselves either for or against that issue; the side of greatest volume will prevail, but is not necessarily correct.[12] In conclusion to this analysis of past governments, Mill proposes a single standard for which a person's liberty may be restricted:

    That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant ... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[13]"

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.