Skip to main content

March on Saturday!


It's absolutely vital as many people as possible support the march against cuts on Saturday the 26th March. A big turn out won't be enough to stop the Government but it is necessary: they will be looking at numbers to gauge strength of opposition. If you only attend one march, make it this one.

Assemble Victoria Embankment, 11am to march to a rally in Hyde Park. Events

See you there, I hope.

More details at:
http://www.marchforthealternative.org.uk/

Thanks to Chris Horner for his poetic words...

Comments

Paul Baird said…
It would be intesting to read your views about how protesters seem to have adapted their methods of protests in response to the Mets previous use of kettling.

I think that protesting is a social safety valve and the Met may learning their own valuable lesson about not permitting one to exist.

Did you have a good day ?
March 27, 2011 at 8:51 AM
Stephen Law said…
Hi Paul. Yeh. But long. Got there 12-ish and took 2 hours walking just to reach official starting point at Embankment. Reached Hyde Park 6 hours later. Had a 45 minute break at Waterstone's Costa at Piccadilly to feed my 11 year old and when we came out the mood had changed and we saw the protestors on the ledge at Fortnum and Masons painting slogans. Couldn't get beyond that cos road blocked so we detoured round to get to Hyde Park which is just as well as we would have been kettled in the next few minutes. Finally got to largely deserted Hyde Park at 6pm. Definitely way more than 250,000 people.
March 27, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more