Southport Forums - MP John Pugh attends Anti-War Demonstration

MP John Pugh attends Anti-War Demonstration
Sat 15th Feb 2003, 06:37 PM
Reported by: onthespot

There was a gathering on Lord Street this afternoon by people opposed to the Iraq war. They were demonstrating against the build up towards military action in Iraq.

Lib Dem MP John Pugh & Cllr Richard Hands attended todays gathering.

A member of the public told onthespot that this is the only way that people will be able to show how they feel about the war and our government should respect it.

Mr Millar an Ex flying officer in the RAF said he was opposed to military action in Iraq, it's wrong and it will cause more freedom fighters. We are under no threat from Iraq.

Pictured below is Mr Millar.

MP John Pugh listens to peoples opinions throughout the day.

Ilona and sister Emily help dad give out information sheets to the public.

Both Sue McGuire and Clive Dally from Lib Dem Cambridge ward focus team were at the gathering.

Mrs Graham from Birkdale a former member of the ATS during the last war think's its disgusting what Bush & Blair are doing.

Pictured is Mrs Graham.

Pictured below is Robert Hamilton (right) the organizer of todays event.

Pictured below are Diana Buck (left) & Julia Bromilow who are against the war

Pictured below is young Jack Morgan signing the petition.

As onthespot was walking down Lord Street one member of the public shouted 'People who propose war are the real cowards'.

YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE

(22 comments)

drlove says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 07:43 PM

These peace loving hippies tend to forget that their right to protest is built on the death's of two million people who stood-up to another anti Semitic dictator.

This political situation should be left to the government. They know a lot more than we do from MI5 about the real human suffering that has gone on by Mr Hussein.

Left wing groups that have been on the brink of death since the break up of the Soviet Union are trying to gasp a final breath. How many readers noticed the way that Michael Foot is wheeled on as a crowd pleaser?

2112 says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 08:23 PM

Your facile comments take this debate no further forward. Your grasp of punctuation and sentence construction is nearly as good as Bush Jnr.

Doctor says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 08:45 PM

I quite agree 2112, in addition I would like to point out to our ill-educated poster that MI5 deal only with internal security issues. MI6 are the body responsible for gathering intelligence from outside the UK.

daveball says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 09:36 PM

Although I'm not on any of the photographs I signed the petition on Lord Sreet today to show the world that I'm against this unjust war and to show our government that even though they have the majority in parliament this does not mean that they can represent the people on all the important issues.

2112 says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 09:40 PM

"The ammunition's being passed
And the Lord's been praised
But the wars on the televisions will never be explained
All the bankers gettin sweaty beneath their white collars
As the pound in our pocket turns into a dollar

This is the 51st state of the USA"

From Heartland, Infected 1987 Matt Johnson THE THE

jimmy-j says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 09:43 PM

Some interesting pics.

abdu says:	Sat 15th Feb 2003, 10:59 PM

Why does a Southport MP protest against Bush/Blair but will not travel to Iraq to protest against the real cause of this war - Saddam?

RedStarLine says:	Sun 16th Feb 2003, 12:35 AM

I didnt get chance to sign the petition because I was in London with between 1 and 2 million others marching in protest of this unjust and un-needed war.Charles Kennedy did a good speech.

Mothman says:	Sun 16th Feb 2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by drlove
These peace loving hippies tend to forget that their right to protest is built on the death's of two million people who stood-up to another anti Semitic dictator.

This political situation should be left to the government. They know a lot more than we do from MI5 about the real human suffering that has gone on by Mr Hussein.

Left wing groups that have been on the brink of death since the break up of the Soviet Union are trying to gasp a final breath. How many readers noticed the way that Michael Foot is wheeled on as a crowd pleaser?

Tell me 'Dr War', how does one manage type on a keyboard so accurately whilst wearing a straight-jacket? :confused:

Your idol Mr Blair said yesterday that "War is an act of humanity"

Surely on that basis, then on an incremental basis nuclear war would be the most humane and civilizing act of all?

When Bush and Blair's stormtroopers return from a Middle East in flames having murdered thousands of innocent civilians, perhaps we can then further discuss your obvious experstise on the subject of human suffering.

billyd says:	Sun 16th Feb 2003, 07:02 PM

I hope those who were in town yesterday are feeling happy knowing that Iraqi newspapers this morning are praising their actions, calling it a "huge moral victory" over the United States and Britain.

Mothman says:	Sun 16th Feb 2003, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by billyd
I hope those who were in town yesterday are feeling happy knowing that Iraqi newspapers this morning are praising their actions, calling it a "huge moral victory" over the United States and Britain.

As opposed to our own right-wing press, who presumably simply can't wait for the B52's to start carpet-bombing and slaughtering the entire civilian population of Baghdad.

I prefer to regard it as a huge victory for the rule of civilization over the apologists for genocide myself. Of course I've never read a state-controlled Iraqi newspaper, but I can't for the life of me imagine that it is any more distorted, jingoistic, or obscene than the Sun or the Express.

Tony says:	Mon 17th Feb 2003, 05:55 PM

So what would all of you do, if, in the event of doing nothing, Sadam ended up with a whole load of WMD? He is the kind of nut who would actually use them, and/or hold the world to ransome to his demands.

It is too easy for people to bury their heads in the sand. Nobody wants war (apart from Blair and Bush it seems) but sometimes it is neccessary. How would the world look today if there hadn't been WWII? Our freedoms, our way of life is owed to the sacrifices of men and women who gave their lives in both WWI and WWII so that we can live life to the full today, tomorrow, and always.

"Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right than responsible and wrong"

To do nothing is not an option.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

RedStarLine says:	Mon 17th Feb 2003, 07:50 PM

no one is suggesting that nothing be done. The anti war amrch was not pro-Saddam. It was not anti-american.

Daveart says:	Tue 18th Feb 2003, 04:30 AM

The Right Honourable John Howard
Prime Minister

Parliament House

Canberra, ACT Australia

Dear John

I hope it's okay that I call you John, John. Given that I'm one of the
Australian people whose best interests you're currently acting in, I figured
that we might as well be on first name terms. I mean, if you know what's
best for me, we should practically be friends.

I just thought I'd let you know what I was doing yesterday, which was Sunday
the 16th of February 2003. Note that date, because one day it might become
very significant to you. I went marching yesterday in Sydney, along with
250,000 other people whose best interests you are acting in.

It was a pretty amazing sight, John. People as far as the eye could see,
people of all ages, many different cultural and religious backgrounds (but
only those that you decided should stay in this country, as I remember you
saying forcefully in Parliament last year). There were many people
"protesting" for the first time in their lives. Now, according to that
booklet you sent me last week, those people were acting very suspiciously,
very "out of the ordinary." I was alert to their presence, John, but I
wasn't that alarmed. After all, everybody seemed to be there for the same
reason.

And that's pretty significant, don't you think, John? Not one single,
dissenting voice in the 250,000 that turned up. Or is that suspicious? I'll
have to consult my terrorism guidebook on that one. The point is, you have
said in the media that you will basically ignore the opinion of the huge
numbers who turned out around the country over the weekend (not to mention
all over the world) because you "suspect" there are many people who agree
with you, but they're not as noisy about it. So all these people you're
referring to John, are keeping their views a secret. That's highly
suspicious behaviour, if I'm interpreting my guidebook correctly. Should I
report that to the hotline?

The thing is, I once read somewhere that for every person who does turn up
to a protest gathering, there are ten who don't, but agree with those who
do. I put that to the test at my workplace and with my family. So far, I've
found 17 people who didn't get to Hyde Park yesterday for reasons of lack
of transport, physical capacity or other commitments. All 17 said they
would have liked to, and agreed with the message being delivered. So if we
take that logic a little bit further, there could have been 2.5 million
people in Sydney yesterday. And by the way, John, my guidebook says I
should be wary of situations that "don't add up". It was hard to add up the
numbers at yesterday's march, but take it from me, there were far more than
a quarter of a million people there. (By the way, what was your overall
majority in the last election?)

John, let me ask you this. Do you think that if I suspended my moral beliefs
for a while (you understand those terms, don't you; "moral" and "belief"?),
and organised a pro-war march, would I attract 250,000 people? If I shouted
out, "Come on, all you people who agree with John. Be noisy! Show John he's
right. Let him know he is acting in our best interests. Gather up and show
your support!" What do you think? Would people turn out in their hundreds
of thousands for it? Because if they didn't, I'd reckon that would be
really suspicious, and that something just didn't add up. I think I'd
become alarmed.

But I guess I already am alarmed, John. I'm alarmed because you've gone all
paternal and fatherly on us. That attitude of "There, there, kids. You can
make all the noise you want but sensible people don't do that. I know
what's best for you all so no more of that silly marching nonsense, okay?"
I'm not a kid, John. I understand that it's really hard to demonise a
million protesters around the country. We were all right there, on TV, for
the world to see. You couldn't very well say we were throwing our kids
overboard, could you? Couldn't try to make us out to be evil in order to
achieve an election result this time, could you?

Or maybe you can. I completely forgot. You're acting in my best interests.
And it's in my best interests to be ignored because, let's face it, I don't
know what I want, do I? And the next Federal election - well that's years
away. Well, John, I know what I don't want. I don't want my country to be
associated with a war on Iraq. I don't want my country to be closely
associated with the atrocious and ignorant attitudes of the President of
the United States. A man who, if he resided in Australia, would probably be
the subject of millions of phone calls to the Anti-Terrorism hotline
because he doesn't (and can't) "add up".

Can you add up, John? One million multiplied by ten. That's the number you
should really worry about. That's not just the number of people who may not
think you're acting in their best interests. Somewhere in that range, it's
also the number of innocent Iraqis who will be killed while your friend in
the White House goes drilling for oil under the guise of "disarming
Saddam". You really want to be a part of that, John? It's funny, I've never
seen you as having that much of a "disarming" character. (According to the
Macquarie Dictionary, the definition is "winning, endearing".)

Endearing? Not to many of the people I saw in Hyde Park yesterday, John. Of
course, we're not in possession of all the facts, are we, John? We're not as
well informed on this subject as you and your (war) cabinet, are we? I mean,
your own Foreign Minister, the man who once made fun of domestic violence
against women, he's gone all queasy on violence now, hasn't he? Those lurid
details on the way Saddam treats his own citizens, all the torture, the
electric shock treatment, the brutality. All that rhetoric to try and
convince us that we're wrong and war is right. But tell me, John, with all
this terrible information, why is your government sending Iraqi asylum
seekers back to Iraq, telling them that they're not at risk, they have
nothing to fear. That's very puzzling, very suspicious, and just doesn't
add up.

I've changed my mind, Mr. Howard. I could never be on first name terms with
someone who disgusts me as much as you do

This is a copy of the letter to the Australian Prime Minister now doing the rounds via e-mail, I thouht you might like to share the writers views. Daveart.

Tony says:	Tue 18th Feb 2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RedStarLine
no one is suggesting that nothing be done. The anti war amrch was not pro-Saddam. It was not anti-american.

So what was it then?
Seems like a 'sitting on the fence' answer to me.
Please explain to me what you and the others want to see happen in Iraq and how this can be achieved.

tonio says:	Tue 18th Feb 2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
So what would all of you do, if, in the event of doing nothing, Sadam ended up with a whole load of WMD? He is the kind of nut who would actually use them, and/or hold the world to ransome to his demands.

Actually our own British Intelligence has known that Saddam has mass destruction weapons ever since the last Gulf War. And they reckon that he is not particularly likely to use them unless attacked - as indeed he has not done all these years.

Let us not forget that Saddam is only there because Bush's father deliberately left him there after the last Gulf war. All those poor young people fried alive and irradiated for nothing because of US chess games.

Bush and Blair are just about to mount the biggest ever recruiting campaign for suicide bombers and other tewrrorists among fundamentalist muslims that we've ever seen.

Remember who has Weapons of mass destruction recently acquired - and have recentlybeen involved in hostilities, and that the US does nothing about THEM because they a little bit too big and a few GIs might die:

India
Pakistan
China
Korea

And then of course there are those top-hole kings of slaughter, the UN-ignoring state of Israel and the US of A whose carpet bombing and chemical weapons on innocent civilians led to year zero and the Khmer Rouge.

Anyway i was very happy to be there on Saturday, as vice-chair of the local Liberal Democrats, listening to Charles Kennedy talking sense. The pic below is of the front of 4000 Lib Dems about to set off together on the march.

pedoja says:	Tue 18th Feb 2003, 06:23 PM

Great Pic of you Tonio......

The one with the Biggest Plaquard.....

I have resized the pic for those less fortunate individuals who do not have Broadband.

Tony says:	Tue 18th Feb 2003, 08:58 PM

Tonio,

I note your post, but am I missing something here? Are you in a position to actually know what our intelligence services are actually saying? How do you know what they reckon? I believe that if you are right, then Tony Blair would not be in the position that he finds himself in. Might I suggest that you might in fact be wrong, and that our intelligence services might actually believe he is the sort of nut to use WMD. Let's face it, he has killed more than 1million of his own people in the past 30 years!!! He presides over a country who's people live in constant fear. Just tell me what the Lib Dems want to see happen. Are you happy for Sadam to remain? Are you happy to keep the status quo? What is it that Lib Dems are standing for on this. I didn't realise you were politically linked, but now that I do I hope that you can provide some feedback.

Cheers
Tony

tonio says:	Thu 20th Feb 2003, 11:43 PM

The intelligence has indeed been reported widely (it was available to all Privy Councillors).

Saddam is not some 'nut' - he is a power-crazed piece of evil and is very effective at it. The world sadly is full of such folk and others who let them run things.

Blair is, how can one put this kindly, 'not the brightest button on the beach' and has a great craving (narcissistic) for attention. He also has a peculiar pseudo-moralism which makes him fall for that 'regime change' nonsense which is literally playing god.

You do not just walk in to a place like Iraq and destroy the infrastructure (through war) then remove the government and expect to walk away. The task thereafter is massive.

The US government is happy to set up a force of occupation in Iraq for ever and a day to protect their oil interests and have a firm big new base in the Middle East. British people are not so daft. British Prime Minister on the other hand.....

Note how the old total rubbish about Bin Laden links is being played down now - as are the totally dishonest decade-old lies in the 'dossier' they made a meal of till it was shown to be filched from an old essay by an american arab student years ago.

If you want to attack a country which develops mass destruction weapons, why not Pakistan, China, India, Israel - or even the Us itself (probably most likely country of all to use them)?

If you want to invade a place with a murderous regime, why not Zimbabwe, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel?

If you want to invade somewhere where Bin Laden's mob are likely hiding then Germany, US, Venuzuala, who knows?

If you want to invade somewhere which treats UN resolutions like sheets of Andrex then Israel is right up there too.

The Lib dem position includes a recognition that not being God we do not always have a remedy for every ill in every part of the globe - but we also realise that going in feet first without a clear idea of likely outcomes is a mugs game. Does no one remember the US in Vitnam? Other than supporting democratic opposition and waiting for Saddam to die (with or without local assistance) I doubt whether there is anything much the or US UK can usefully do for Iraq. Remember both China and Russia have in my lifetime killed and tortured far more of their 'own' people than Iraq ever has done. They changed regimes by themselves under all sorts of pressures - but certtainly not armed attack half-destroying the country and killing many thousands of innocents.

Tony says:	Fri 21st Feb 2003, 02:51 PM

Tonio

If Sadam has killed more than 1million of his own people over the past 30 years, and sanctioned touture and rape on a massive scale, do you not think that it would be better to force an alternative to his regime which would ultimately save the Iraqi people. To just wait until Sadam dies surely means leaving the Iraqi people in fear and dstitute with no hope. If Sadam was left to die would he not have arranged for his crazed son or somone else to take over the running of Iraq.

No-one wants war, however sometimes it is a neccessary evil. Yes, innocent people will die in war, but the alternative of doing nothing and playing the waiting game is far worse.

By the way, since when was information disclosed to the Privy Council made public? I thought that information of national interest that is disclosed to opposition politicians is disucssed within "Privy Council Terms". That is - It's confidential. Has Charles Kennedy been saying things that should have remained confidential to Privy Counsellors??? And if he has, how have you found about it? - Or are you just making this all up?

Alastair says:	Sat 22nd Feb 2003, 06:53 PM

Well done Ralph, Veronica and the girls for handing out leaflets and helping to show the public the madness of this war.

tonio says:	Sun 23rd Feb 2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
To just wait until Sadam dies surely means leaving the Iraqi people in fear and dstitute with no hope.

Has Charles Kennedy been saying things that should have remained confidential to Privy Counsellors??? And if he has, how have you found about it? - Or are you just making this all up?

so kill a few hundred thousand ourselves?

No, CK has not breached the detail of the Privy Council terms. It was made public what he (and others) were going to be given the detail of - several of those who saw the detail have not 'given away' the detail - just said that they were not impressed by it!

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Disclaimer: If you wish to post on this website then please keep your posts suitable for viewing by the general public. Do not use foul or abusive language or anything that is liable to cause offence. Read in Full.

Local Businesses Supporting Southport.gb.com - Your Local Website