Doctor Who Ratings Rise in the US, Fall in the UK

[JDKJ]

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.

I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics.

You googled BNP and read a wikipedia article.

............ Yea.

Did you plant cookies in my laptop? How do you know from where I obtained my knowledge of the BNP? Because I cited to wiki doesn't mean that's the sole source of my knowledge. For all you know, I could hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Political Science. Again, you are ignorant of that about which you know absolutely nothing. And I'm a resident of the United States and take an active interest in their politics. So what? Does that make me the definitive authority on US politics? No, it doesn't. No more than you being a UK resident interested in UK politics makes you the definitive authority on politics in the UK. That's just argumentum ad verecundiam. And of a peculiar sort, too, since you ain't even a authority (not based on "I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics."). That shit alone don't qualify you as anybody's "authority."

 

[Randomorific]

The show's gone to hell? Huh? Sure, the first of this two parter wasn't all that impressive, but last season was pretty good. Where's all this pessimism come from?

Pessimism? On the Escapist?


Seriously, look around at all the threads nowadays. More than half of them are about how someone hates something, rather than discussing what they like.

Well that pretty much summed up what I was thinking, seriously at least half of these people sound like stuffy old men and the way some are saying that Dr Who has been "ruined" is just ridiculous.

Anyway I think the ratings were low because of the glorious weather at the time, the long weekend meant more people were abroad and the lack of advertising, I admit that I don't watch the BBC that much but still I saw 1 advert for Doctor Who in about a month. Also it usually has adverts on the radio a lot, and I only heard a handful of adverts in a month and whenever I'm in the car I listen to BBC stations. hell even a friend of mine who always listens to Radio 4 for about an hour a day only heard an ad about 3 weeks beforehand.
Also a point that has been made before is that it was on at an early time, I seem to remember that it used to be on at around 7pm which is a fine time for a winter slot but in the spring when the days are long 6pm is just silly because everyone is outside.

Final point that someone may have already said is that some really really really crappy gameshow thing was on beforehand which I assume lead people to commit suicide out of despair whilst waiting for Doctor Who to start.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.

I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics.

You googled BNP and read a wikipedia article.

............ Yea.

Did you plant cookies in my laptop? How do you know from where I obtained my knowledge of the BNP? Because I cited to wiki doesn't mean that's the sole source of my knowledge. For all you know, I could hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Political Science. Again, you are ignorant of that about which you know absolutely nothing. And I'm a resident of the United States and take an active interest in their politics. So what? Does that make me the definitive authority on US politics? No, it doesn't, No more than you being a UK resident interested in UK politics makes you the definitive authority on politics in the UK. That's just argumentum ad verecundiam.

Hello there strawmen, you'd disappeared for a while, nice to see you rearing your heads again.

I never claimed to be a definitive authority. Just that I knew more about it than you.

The fact that Wikipedia was your go to source kind of tells me that you don't have a Ph.D in comparative political science.

Me being a resident of the UK that actively follows my countries politics trumps your last minute Wikipedia acquired knowledge.

I live here, I can tell you that the BNP doesn't have the kind of sway you're suggesting.

You also (wilfully?) misrepresented the figures you got from wiki.

Claiming that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast when they actually had 1.9%. 14.6% was what they managed to get in one constituency.

All this is kinda pointing to, the not too unreasonable assumption, that you're not a graduate of political science.

To put it bluntly, I'd be surprised if you were a graduate of anything.

(That is based solely on your attitude throughout this entire fiasco.)

That's not at all what I said. I said "n 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." Go back and read my post if you're in doubt. You were they one who twisted that into a claim on my part that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast. I said no such thing. Maybe your reading skills (lack thereof) got the better of you. But that ain't nowhere close to what I said. That's only what you said. And the two are not the same. Or is the underlying math escaping your comprehension?

And then you wanna talk about hoisting a strawman? Please.

You are without doubt a graduate of the London School of Cretinomics.

 

[Saviordd1]

Well if they had kept david tennant we would be fine

 

[0986875533423]

The show was broadcast 45 minutes earlier than normal, with horrible lead-in and lead-out shows (check the half-hourly ratings), on a bright sunny day of a four-day holiday weekend, and almost no advertising.

And in spite of all that, when you figure in the number of people who have simply stopped watching TV altogether, the season opener pulled barely one percent fewer of the ratings share than last season's. Which, incidentally, is over ten percent of the UK's entire population. The show is doing GREAT.

You win everything forever.

 

[Seraphna]

I think the most annoying thing I read in this thread was that the show taking place in the US makes it bad.

Are we Dr. Who fans or not? Last time I checked the TARDIS goes to placed other then London.

 

[JDKJ]

That's not at all what I said. I said "n 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." Go back and read my post if you're in doubt. You were they one who twisted that into a claim on my part that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast. I said no such thing. Maybe your reading skills (lack thereof) got the better of you. But that ain't nowhere close to what I said. That's only what you said. And the two are not the same. Or is the underlying math escaping your comprehension?

And then you wanna talk about hoisting a strawman? Please.

*Ahem*

A quarter million votes and 14% of the votes cast ain't peanuts. What percentage of the vote did Cameron and the Conservatives get last time out?

I'd like my apology in bright pink, 30 meter high lettering if you wouldn't mind.

Also. Add some stars and glitter if you will.

Maybe a "I'm sorry, I was wrong here" soudtrack playing on a loop in the background?

No... that's too much.

But pink and stars... that's doable right?

You get nothing. Immediately before the post you now conveniently quote in only part and omit the larger context, I said "14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." The 14% I subsequently referred to is clearly a reference to the previously mentioned "14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." You can, if you choose to, leave out the all-important context and what was previously stated in order to ineptly make your disingenuous point, but you get nothing for that other than me rolling my eyes at your ineptness.

Even your fabricated evidence that I said "14% of total votes cast" fails to prove that as a fact. It doesn't say a word about "total votes cast." It only says "14% of the votes cast." And it makes sense that that it doesn't. I wasn't talking about "total" votes cast.

 

[Yankeedoodles]

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.

I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics.

You googled BNP and read a wikipedia article.

............ Yea.

Did you plant cookies in my laptop? How do you know from where I obtained my knowledge of the BNP? Because I cited to wiki doesn't mean that's the sole source of my knowledge. For all you know, I could hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Political Science. Again, you are ignorant of that about which you know absolutely nothing. And I'm a resident of the United States and take an active interest in their politics. So what? Does that make me the definitive authority on US politics? No, it doesn't, No more than you being a UK resident interested in UK politics makes you the definitive authority on politics in the UK. That's just argumentum ad verecundiam.

Hello there strawmen, you'd disappeared for a while, nice to see you rearing your heads again.

I never claimed to be a definitive authority. Just that I knew more about it than you.

The fact that Wikipedia was your go to source kind of tells me that you don't have a Ph.D in comparative political science.

Me being a resident of the UK that actively follows my countries politics trumps your last minute Wikipedia acquired knowledge.

I live here, I can tell you that the BNP doesn't have the kind of sway you're suggesting.

You also (wilfully?) misrepresented the figures you got from wiki.

Claiming that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast when they actually had 1.9%. 14.6% was what they managed to get in one constituency.

All this is kinda pointing to, the not too unreasonable assumption, that you're not a graduate of political science.

To put it bluntly, I'd be surprised if you were a graduate of anything.

(That is based solely on your attitude throughout this entire fiasco.)

Well I don't know about the two of you but I've thoroughly enjoyed this 'fiasco'. With the witty barbs and all it was a bit like reading a script for 'House'. BDKJ seems to be making the very simple point that racism and xenophobia are just as prevalent in British politics as they are in American politics and has offered certain facts which seem to back up the fact that nationalist parties have gained support among at least a minority of Britons. I don't really see how that can be argued given the evidence presented. Now what I find most interesting is the fact that a previous thread had led me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong BDKJ) that BDKJ was a British expat living in the States. Knowing that, Abandon, would you still have argued so vehemently (or argued at all) against the mere assertion that American and British politics have a similar level of racism and xenophobia? Did the flag in his profile make all the difference?

If nothing else this thread has completely disabused me of the notion that Britons are any less nationalistic than American and for that I'm glad I read it. Personally I think there will come a day when we as a global interconnected society decide that nationalism as a concept should be viewed in much the same way as elitism.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

I think the most annoying thing I read in this thread was that the show taking place in the US makes it bad.

Are we Dr. Who fans or not? Last time I checked the TARDIS goes to placed other then London.

Ah Yes! it goes to Cardiff pretending to be London as well!
How could we forget that?

Also, on the Gasoline issue? Surely simply reading an American Jerry can with the word Gasoline in it, after seeing the greatest man in the universe die before his eyes, Rory can be excused for not automatically correcting it back to petrol?

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I actually really liked the previous series although I will agree with the complaints about power ranger daleks. The only thing that bugs me about Matt Smith is how they are trying to make him more "human". He's a fucking time lord, he is NOT human. Just watching that season opener really made me cringe. The Doctor is supposed to be smart, he figures out ridiculously complex alien technology by glancing at it for half a second. But he couldn't figure out who sent him the letter? Let me emphasise this: he couldn't figure out that a letter that he wrote was from himself, even after everyone else said that they couldn't tell him who it was because of spoilers. Are you serious? Amy figured out that it was the Doctor within 5 seconds! Surely he would be able to hazard a reasonable guess? But also the whole last series he was acting quite dumb in general. Unless it's some major story arc in which an arch-nemesis is degrading the Doctor's brain, they need to sort this out because it's really getting on my hypothetical tits.

 

[Verlander]

It's more liekly because people stopped watching halfway through it... it was rubbish!

 

[JDKJ]

That's not at all what I said. I said "n 2008 the BNP polled an average of 14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." Go back and read my post if you're in doubt. You were they one who twisted that into a claim on my part that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast. I said no such thing. Maybe your reading skills (lack thereof) got the better of you. But that ain't nowhere close to what I said. That's only what you said. And the two are not the same. Or is the underlying math escaping your comprehension?

And then you wanna talk about hoisting a strawman? Please.

*Ahem*

A quarter million votes and 14% of the votes cast ain't peanuts. What percentage of the vote did Cameron and the Conservatives get last time out?

I'd like my apology in bright pink, 30 meter high lettering if you wouldn't mind.

Also. Add some stars and glitter if you will.

Maybe a "I'm sorry, I was wrong here" soudtrack playing on a loop in the background?

No... that's too much.

But pink and stars... that's doable right?

You get nothing. Immediately before the post you now conveniently quote in only part and omit the larger context, I said "14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." The 14% I subsequently referred to is clearly a reference to the previously mentioned "14% across 593 wards contested having fielded 612 candidates." You can, if you choose to, leave out the all-important context and what was previously stated in order to ineptly make your disingenuous point, but you get nothing for that other than me rolling my eyes at your ineptness.

You said that two posts before.

If you don't provide context in your own posts how can you expect other people to provide it? Saying '14% of the votes cast' is a pretty clear statement in it's own right. If you want people to have context. Provide it.

This retarded fart of a discussion is going completely round the roundabouts now. People much saner than I have already left and forgotten you, I think I'll follow suit.

Talking with you is no doubt dropping my IQ.

Saying "14% of votes cast" doesn't at all or necessarily mean "14% of total votes cast." You stuck the word "total" in there, not me. Twisting my words or lacking in reading comprehension? Which one is it? It's either one or the other.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.

I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics.

You googled BNP and read a wikipedia article.

............ Yea.

Did you plant cookies in my laptop? How do you know from where I obtained my knowledge of the BNP? Because I cited to wiki doesn't mean that's the sole source of my knowledge. For all you know, I could hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Political Science. Again, you are ignorant of that about which you know absolutely nothing. And I'm a resident of the United States and take an active interest in their politics. So what? Does that make me the definitive authority on US politics? No, it doesn't, No more than you being a UK resident interested in UK politics makes you the definitive authority on politics in the UK. That's just argumentum ad verecundiam.

Hello there strawmen, you'd disappeared for a while, nice to see you rearing your heads again.

I never claimed to be a definitive authority. Just that I knew more about it than you.

The fact that Wikipedia was your go to source kind of tells me that you don't have a Ph.D in comparative political science.

Me being a resident of the UK that actively follows my countries politics trumps your last minute Wikipedia acquired knowledge.

I live here, I can tell you that the BNP doesn't have the kind of sway you're suggesting.

You also (wilfully?) misrepresented the figures you got from wiki.

Claiming that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast when they actually had 1.9%. 14.6% was what they managed to get in one constituency.

All this is kinda pointing to, the not too unreasonable assumption, that you're not a graduate of political science.

To put it bluntly, I'd be surprised if you were a graduate of anything.

(That is based solely on your attitude throughout this entire fiasco.)

Well I don't know about the two of you but I've thoroughly enjoyed this 'fiasco'. With the witty barbs and all it was a bit like reading a script for 'House'. BDKJ seems to be making the very simple point that racism and xenophobia are just as prevalent in British politics as they are in American politics and has offered certain facts which seem to back up the fact that nationalist parties have gained support among at least a minority of Britons. I don't really see how that can be argued given the evidence presented. Now what I find most interesting is the fact that a previous thread had led me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong BDKJ) that BDKJ was a British expat living in the States. Knowing that, Abandon, would you still have argued so vehemently (or argued at all) against the mere assertion that American and British politics have a similar level of racism and xenophobia? Did the flag in his profile make all the difference?

If nothing else this thread has completely disabused me of the notion that Britons are any less nationalistic than American and for that I'm glad I read it. Personally I think there will come a day when we as a global interconnected society decide that nationalism as a concept should be viewed in much the same way as elitism.

No, you are correct. I was born and raised in a former British colony. I didn't migrate to the States until I was in my late teens. I still reside here as a registered alien. Although I long ago qualified to apply for naturalized US citizenship, I refuse to do so. The thought of being a US citizen is repugnant to me. Who would I cheer for during the Test cricket series?

 

[Bento Box]

Being a filthy yank (or, let's face it, what I suspect half the whiners in this thread would prefer to call a 'colonist,') I'd like to bring this thread back on track with the following:

From the Doctor Who subtopic in TV Tropes' "Ruined FOREVER:"

The build-up and early days of the new Doctor Who series saw plenty of this, to the extent that one couldn't help but wonder whether the producers were taking some kind of sadistic glee in prolonging the hardcore fanboys' constant whining about the subject. Paul McGann isn't starring? The show now sucks. The Doctor's wearing a leather jacket? The show now sucks. Billie Piper's the companion? The show now sucks. The new logo? Sucks, as does the rest of the show now. But perhaps the nadir of this was a thread on The Doctor Who Forum decrying the new series and the fact that the producers obviously Just Didn't Care... based on shots of the new TARDIS looking slightly different from the old one and having slightly bigger windows. This last one was referenced directly in the series itself. Of course, even after the show had started airing, constant threads about how this episode was the worst one ever and that the producers should be fired continued for a long, long time.

* "Continued"? Past tense? Seriously, in the year 100 Trillion, when all that's left is a planet called Malcassairo inhabited by the remnants of humanity, huddled together for warmth, one of them will still be complaining that David Tennant isn't as good as Colin Baker, and Russell T Davies ruined the series by bringing it back and making it the most watched show on a Saturday afternoon.
o But Tennant wasn't as good as Colin Baker !
* This is made even more ridiculous when you realize that there were at least three different "old" TARDIS props to compare it to (four if you count the one in the telemovie which, let's face it, people who complain about this kind of thing probably won't) that had all been used in the old series and the new one looked more like an actual police box than any of them.
o Never mind the fact that the console room interior and the console itself changed no less than seven times over the course of the original show, only one of which?the one in "The Time Monster"?was universally disliked by everyone, cast, crew, and fans alike.
o Also the fact that the TARDIS is supposed to be able to change shape anyway. So any alterations could just be the chameleon circuit acting glitchy before freezing up again.
* People were moaning that the RTD-era TARDIS didn't look like a real police box several years on. Then they got a look at the Steven Moffat-era TARDIS... and a whole /new/ round of moaning began. Now that Moffat has gone from being the cool alternative to the official head writer, expect him to inherit RTD's Scapegoat Creator - ness.
o And what made this latest bout of TARDIS-related angst particularly ironic was that the Moffat-era TARDIS is clearly designed as a clear homage to / recreation of the original TARDIS prop used when the show originally debuted. They can't win coming or going.
* Ever since the show's earliest days, fans have cried foul whenever a new Doctor is announced. The show is always ruined forever after your favorite Doctor's tenure ended. Interestingly, some of them repeat - current 11th Doctor Matt Smith is being criticized for being "too young", a complaint also lodged at David Tennant, Christopher Eccleston, Colin Baker, Peter Davison, and even Tom Baker. Similarly, the departure or introduction of a new companion will be met with outrage. Just to show how much of a Broken Base this show has, The Doctor Who Forum sometimes had long threads that mocked the more extreme reactions with good humor.
* Here is a partial list of the times Doctor Who has been Ruined FOREVER. You will note that some of them are the reversal of an event that ruined it in the first place.
* The debut of the new Daleks got a lot of this kind of reaction from fans. Granted, they do look quite different from previous versions, and not necessarily for the better, but the reaction was still quite extreme. Since this was arguably Moffat's first misstep as showrunner, at least some of this heat seemed to be a mixture of fans overreacting over the fact that he wasn't perfect after all, coupled with a bit of 'we told you so!' gloating from fans of Russell T. Davies who hadn't quite managed to accept that things had moved on a bit.
* There were howls of outrage when Catherine Tate was announced as the new companion. No way did she fit the show. She was a silly comedienne. She'd be dreadful. She turned out to be a huge favourite, second only to Rose as the new show's most popular companion.
* Doctor Who didn't win at the National Television Awards. Clear proof that Steven Moffat and Matt Smith have RUINED DOCTOR WHO FOREVER.
* It's mentioned above that fans hated the new logo introduced in 2005. What is often conveniently forgotten is the late 2004-early 2005 BBC News report that the production team, in an ultimate example of The Law Of Fan Jackassery actually reported receiving a death threat over it. A logo.

 

[Verlander]

Well I don't know about the two of you but I've thoroughly enjoyed this 'fiasco'. With the witty barbs and all it was a bit like reading a script for 'House'. BDKJ seems to be making the very simple point that racism and xenophobia are just as prevalent in British politics as they are in American politics and has offered certain facts which seem to back up the fact that nationalist parties have gained support among at least a minority of Britons. I don't really see how that can be argued given the evidence presented. Now what I find most interesting is the fact that a previous thread had led me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong BDKJ) that BDKJ was a British expat living in the States. Knowing that, Abandon, would you still have argued so vehemently (or argued at all) against the mere assertion that American and British politics have a similar level of racism and xenophobia? Did the flag in his profile make all the difference?

If nothing else this thread has completely disabused me of the notion that Britons are any less nationalistic than American and for that I'm glad I read it. Personally I think there will come a day when we as a global interconnected society decide that nationalism as a concept should be viewed in much the same way as elitism.

Dunno about those guys, but I lived in America and the UK (and Australia as well) and I'd easily say that on a ground, personal level, the Brits are by far the least nationalistic... that is, until foreigners try and move in on their territory (ironic much?)

Most Brits don't own a flag, nor would dream of ever waving one outside of a football match, and close to none know the national anthem. Considering in America that's basic knowledge, and they even brainwa... I mean, require children to salute a flag every morning in school, while reeling off some diatribe about how good it is to live in a slightly different location to everyone else, the Brits aren't nationalist at all. They prove you can be a small minded bigot, racist and xenophobe, while still being self depreciating about your own country. Quite a feat.

I'm not nationalist, and I think that the concept is ridiculous. However, you can't accuse the vast majority of Brits of being nationalist when we aren't, especially compared to America. You guys even made up your own sports, because you didn't want to play with the rest of the world

 

[JDKJ]

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.

I'm a UK resident and I take an active interest in our politics.

You googled BNP and read a wikipedia article.

............ Yea.

Did you plant cookies in my laptop? How do you know from where I obtained my knowledge of the BNP? Because I cited to wiki doesn't mean that's the sole source of my knowledge. For all you know, I could hold a Ph.D. in Comparative Political Science. Again, you are ignorant of that about which you know absolutely nothing. And I'm a resident of the United States and take an active interest in their politics. So what? Does that make me the definitive authority on US politics? No, it doesn't, No more than you being a UK resident interested in UK politics makes you the definitive authority on politics in the UK. That's just argumentum ad verecundiam.

Hello there strawmen, you'd disappeared for a while, nice to see you rearing your heads again.

I never claimed to be a definitive authority. Just that I knew more about it than you.

The fact that Wikipedia was your go to source kind of tells me that you don't have a Ph.D in comparative political science.

Me being a resident of the UK that actively follows my countries politics trumps your last minute Wikipedia acquired knowledge.

I live here, I can tell you that the BNP doesn't have the kind of sway you're suggesting.

You also (wilfully?) misrepresented the figures you got from wiki.

Claiming that the BNP had 14% of the total British votes cast when they actually had 1.9%. 14.6% was what they managed to get in one constituency.

All this is kinda pointing to, the not too unreasonable assumption, that you're not a graduate of political science.

To put it bluntly, I'd be surprised if you were a graduate of anything.

(That is based solely on your attitude throughout this entire fiasco.)

Well I don't know about the two of you but I've thoroughly enjoyed this 'fiasco'. With the witty barbs and all it was a bit like reading a script for 'House'. BDKJ seems to be making the very simple point that racism and xenophobia are just as prevalent in British politics as they are in American politics and has offered certain facts which seem to back up the fact that nationalist parties have gained support among at least a minority of Britons. I don't really see how that can be argued given the evidence presented. Now what I find most interesting is the fact that a previous thread had led me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong BDKJ) that BDKJ was a British expat living in the States. Knowing that, Abandon, would you still have argued so vehemently (or argued at all) against the mere assertion that American and British politics have a similar level of racism and xenophobia? Did the flag in his profile make all the difference?

If nothing else this thread has completely disabused me of the notion that Britons are any less nationalistic than American and for that I'm glad I read it. Personally I think there will come a day when we as a global interconnected society decide that nationalism as a concept should be viewed in much the same way as elitism.

That wasn't his point at all. His point was that

More extremist than the Brits and the BNP? Doesn't the "N" in "BNP" stand for "nationalist?" At least the Yanks don't have a major political party proudly founded on the principles of racism and xenophobia.

That's what set me off.

I said on numerous occasions that the US and the UK both had racist idiots intermingling with the rest of us. But saying that simply because there is a party dedicated to it in the UK doesn't reflect us as a nation, for the simple fact that we ascribe to the principle of 'freedom of assembly'. The US does not.

If he'd have simply said the US is not more nationalist as a whole than the UK. I'd have agreed with him.

That is unfortunately not what he said.

I also didn't check his profile. So no, that didn't effect my judgement of him.

Again, you either twist my words or fail to comprehend them. I posed the rhetorical question: "More extremist than the Brits and the BNP?" in response to the poster claiming that the Americans were nationalistic (in all fairness and in the interest of accuracy, the poster glibly began to type "nationalist," struck it, and replaced it with "patriotic'). Which then and now struck me as someone living in a glass house and throwing stones.

And why are you claiming that there's no right to assembly in the United States? The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."