Home | About | Donate

UK Plan to Outlaw Boycotts Compared to Support for Apartheid South Africa


#1


Sanders Surge Eyes Nevada and South Carolina as Clinton Firewalls Show Cracks
Nation's Most Vulnerable Are Fighting Back Against the 1% Tide
#2

Outlawing boycotts? Essentially, the UK conservos want to block people's choice. Good luck with implementing that one.

Oh, the corporate hubris.


#3

Hmmmm, makes me want to watch V for Vendetta again.
;-})


#4

Their banking fortune is said to be valued at $100 Trillion. Wonder who rules England?

"The Rothschilds also played a significant part in the funding of Israel's governmental infrastructure. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset building as a gift to the State of Israel and the Supreme Court of Israel building was donated to Israel by Dorothy de Rothschild."


#7

Then they'll have to get rid of that nasty little Magna Charta


#8

I guess all of those "socially responsible mutual funds" would then become illegal.
We will all be required to become war profiteers to ease the conscience of the 1%.


#9

Most of the posters here appear not to have read the article. Britain is not proposing to outlaw consumers or groups of consumers who wish not to purchase products and services made under potentially illegal or immoral conditions, nor does it have the power to do so. What the British government is proposing is that local governments should not have official statements on the morality of other countries and their actions, which makes since because Britain wants one cohesive policy towards a country and for its decisions involving that country to be in force nationwide.

That being said a city government should have the autonomy not to spend its own money or invest in countries when its citizens would have a legal or ethical issue doing so, particularly when Britain has allowed council action against South Africa.


#10

And this from a PM (Cameron) who came to power promising to increase regional autonomy and the powers of local democracies. Compare with how, when Lancashire Council threw out plans to frack in the region, the government intervened and said from now on such decisions will be made at Westminster rather than regionally. Effectively, this policy would mean a council cannot invest its funds in an ethical share scheme that supports clean energy, or does not support dodgy companies. Sickening.


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#13

Well with the federal reserve under their thumb they never have to worry about spending.
I say tax the bastards.


#14

Why not? That's because the powerful Zionists have a chokehold on the governments in Britain, USA and Canada.


#15

Illegalize boycotts...illegalize boycotts...wth? So if a company sells ISIS weapons and UK schools milk, it will be ILLEGAL to stop purchasing milk from that company...yeah, that sounds like the fascist arse Brits.


#16

SIEG HEIL. The brave new world is upon us. And all this time the nimrods were worried about communism or was that just another distraction while they were busy buying our governments?


#19

Sure that's why the soviets had to block of eastern germany, because people wanted to say, and loved communism. That might also be why people after the cold war immigrated west where all the jobs, and schools, and hospitals are.


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#21

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#22

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#23

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#24

I have certainly heard mixed feelings about the current situation, going back 20 or more years, from my (formerly) East German friends. Not scientific but something.