# G20, RBS and violence.



## derf (Apr 2, 2009)

*Here is the news from around the world. *

Al Jazeera is saying the protests were mostly peaceful and show a police shield charge pushing over their cameraman but the main pictures were of RBS getting trashed ( I am very sorry for the Americanism).
It mentioned the crowd being penned in and police tactics not being great but more in passing.

Russia Today makes a couple of political point scores about the G20 but the violence at RBS were the main pictures you saw on that one.

Metro TV, Indonesia only mentioned the violence and not much more.

Iran's press TV mentioned a few political points and not much more. (That really is a crap channel).

From Singapore we saw peaceful protests at first for a few seconds but the rest was RBS.

The overriding images and the main story on all channels was the violence by what seemed to be a small number of people but the TV news made it appear to be the majority.

I understand from this forum and others along with news coverage that the vast majority were trying to make their point in a peaceful manner but the international news stations show not much more than the RBS branch being smashed up.

How do you feel about this and those who made the news. Did they help make your point or did they fuck up your day's work?


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 2, 2009)

you missed one point that i would have said,

it was a flashpoint situation were they knew "some" people would react and the police "wanted" this to happen and allowed it to.


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 2, 2009)

the press is, in general, incapable of reporting the real issues and salivate over any images of clash or smash.

we're giving them way too much credit by suggesting that they are capable of reporting or making news.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 2, 2009)

the RBS thing is well blown out of proportion.

nothing got 'stormed' a few protesters jumped through a smashed window and ran back out about a minute later when they saw the police inside.

not really a storming.

meanwhile up the other end of the demo, was a huge branch of HSBC unscathed.

saw more smashed windows at the Gaza demo in Jan tbh

never seen so many media from around the world on a demo tho this time.


----------



## xes (Apr 2, 2009)

The RBS thing was a complete set up, right next to the BoE and it's not boarded up? Lots of police waiting inside while the bang on the window for half an hour trying to smash it? Lots of press photography handily all around him?

Sorry, but that's bollocks.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm more surprised that (if?) the international press aren't reporting on what went on yesterday evening/night. Possibly because many of the journalists and camera men had gone home by then.

The RBS incident provided a reason for the police to get fully kitted up with the rest of their riot gear, and then pen people in for many hours with no food/water/access to toilets/first aid.

What it didn't do, was provide a reason for the riot police to subsequently descend on the peace camp - cordoning them off, and then forcibly dispersing them later. The camp was entirely peaceful and did not deserve this treatment in anyway.


----------



## Termite Man (Apr 2, 2009)

I wouldn't be surprised if the "protestors" who smashed the window worked for the banks and did this to get the news attention away from the protestors message . Which they have been doing very well in the run up to as well with all the reports of "bankers have to wear their own clothes to work" type shit they have been spreading !


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 2, 2009)

xes said:


> The RBS thing was a complete set up, right next to the BoE and it's not boarded up? Lots of police waiting inside while the bang on the window for half an hour trying to smash it? Lots of press photography handily all around him?




As somebody for whom yesterday was the first time I found myself looking at the protesters side of things then I am in full agreement with this.

And there was even some ex-cop on LBC yesterday who expressed his amazement at why this branch of the RBS was not boarded up. He talked about the Met messing up in not identifying it as a potential target.

There was no mess up. It was a stitch up. Simple as that.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

1) non-violence works, for example, the Bi'lin protests in Palestine-Israel held jointly by Israeli-Palestinian Jews and Arabs. search the Middle East forum on my posts there on the non-violence movement.
2) Best reason to do it - it leaves only the authorities as the ones meting out the violence. Agent provocateurs and random violence starters can be rooted out easier this way. We live in Britain, not Israel-Palestine. We need to build public support, at this early stage, all is not lost, but it could be lost in future if violent acts against persons or property continue. Non-violent demos will encourage others who might not join in to join in. If people think they're going to get hurt, either by acts of other protestors or by police, they won't join us and we lose.
3) Don't confuse non-violence with being against civil disobedience, e.g. squatting, sit-downs, repeated marches/demos to keep issue in news. Throwing missiles which might injure someone on the demo or even the police is potentially going to hurt someone and therefore violent.
4) with non-violence, money is needed to fight ineveitable court cases - see Anarchists against the Wall website for news of how long a fight needs to be kept running. It took 2 years to get the Bi'lin demo - held every week by - before Channel 4 news did a long piece on the issues.

By non-violence, I mean no throwing any missiles, smoke bombs. No point really in destroying property - private or public, but fine to dismantle illegal walls/fences (see Bi'ilin protests - where farmers cut off from their lands and denied access via checkpoints despite court orders saying farmers must be allowed access)
By civil disobedience I mean disregarding demands by authorities and demonstrating regardless, keeping spirits high, and getting articulate messages across via all media at disposal.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

cesare said:


> I'm more surprised that (if?) the international press aren't reporting on what went on yesterday evening/night. Possibly because many of the journalists and camera men had gone home by then.
> 
> The RBS incident provided a reason for the police to get fully kitted up with the rest of their riot gear, and then pen people in for many hours with no food/water/access to toilets/first aid.
> 
> What it didn't do, was provide a reason for the riot police to subsequently descend on the peace camp - cordoning them off, and then forcibly dispersing them later. The camp was entirely peaceful and did not deserve this treatment in anyway.



^This, except it provided a reason for the police to get their riot gear - they weren't 'riot police' until after RBS


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 2, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> As somebody for whom yesterday was the first time I found myself looking at the protesters side of things then I am in full agreement with this.
> 
> And there was even some ex-cop on LBC yesterday who expressed his amazement at why this branch of the RBS was not boarded up. He talked about the Met messing up in not identifying it as a potential target.
> 
> There was no mess up. It was a stitch up. Simple as that.



Agreed. It was allowed to be smashed up.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> ^This, except it provided a reason for the police to get their riot gear - they weren't 'riot police' until after RBS



not quite how i remember it.

they turned in to riot police after that small group of unprotected city police got a bit of a tonking and they retreated to just past the junction that RBS was on the corner of. there were small shielded riot police in line before RBS got smashed and the mounted police were at the bottom of the street as it all happened.

was surprised there was no snatch squads but as others have said, probably suited them for a minor bit of smashy smashy.


----------



## jæd (Apr 2, 2009)

The violence at the bank managed to completely overturn the peaceful protest on Saturday, and any other peaceful protest during the day. I like how this is being spun as a "stitch up". So what if a bank wasn't boarded up...? Can't protesters contain their feelings any more...? Can't they take responsibility for their actions...?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 2, 2009)

jæd said:


> The violence at the bank managed to completely overturn the peaceful protest on Saturday, and any other peaceful protest during the day. I like how this is being spun as a "stitch up". So what if a bank wasn't boarded up...? Can't protesters contain their feelings any more...? Can't they take responsibility for their actions...?


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2009)

There's a surprise. Derf concentrating on the actions of a tiny minority of protesters to highlight a negative aspect of the protest. Who'd a thunk it?


----------



## xes (Apr 2, 2009)

editor said:


> There's a surprise. Derf concentrating on the actions of a tiny minority of protesters to highlight a negative aspect of the protest. Who'd a thunk it?



yeah well, 10s of thousands of peaceful protesters brutalised by the police, isn't as catchy.  as there were only a hand full that were arrested (and lets see how many of those get charged)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 2, 2009)

88 arrested was the count earlier i believe.

Derf doesn't give a shit because he's a limp authoritarian


----------



## e19896 (Apr 2, 2009)

In response to the death of a protestor during the demonstrations against the G20 in the City of London on the 1st April 2009, a solidarity demonstration will assemble at Bank at 1pm.

The aim of the assembly is to:

    * mark the death of the protestor, 
    * call for an independent police inquiry
    * show solidarity against the enormous police repression that happened against protestors outside the Bank, the Climate Exchange and elsewhere in the City of London. 

Any witnesses to this event or any other act of police violence against demonstrators is advised to write a full statement as soon as they possibly can, sign and date it, and give a copy it to a trusted other party. These statements should be given to Bindmans Solicitors (contactable on 020 7833 4433) and the Legal Monitoring groups present at the demonstrations. Information can also be sent to Indymedia London: 

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/986


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2009)

jæd said:


> The violence at the bank managed to completely overturn the peaceful protest on Saturday, and any other peaceful protest during the day.


How about the violence of the police overturning what had been a predominantly a peaceful protest?


----------



## Spion (Apr 2, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> It was allowed to be smashed up.


Quite possibly, IMO.

I think it works like this:

Cops/state: It's good for us for a bit of a ruck to happen. It justifies our budgets, our policing methods, it serves as a deterrent to attendance by some at future events, it helps discredit the main protest. Now, how can we make this happen?

Smashy protestors: We are angry, we want to smash things up. If we do people everywhere will see that ordinary people can get out on the streets and stick it to the rich/middle classes whatever.

With a little bit of police provocation the latter are effectively pushing at an unlocked door and smashy smashy occurs. 

IMO it's all a symptom of what are actually relatively ineffective forms of protest. The movement as manifested in the City yesterday is unfocussed and based around a relatively small number of activists. It's essentially a not very durable form of protest, in the centuries-long tradition of peasants smashing up machinery or blocking roads. IE, it's 'effective' only episodically and once it's done it's done and the protestors go home again. There is no control over anything gained from it. Still, it's part of the movement that's on the right side of things generally and that's the way it is. But I don't see any real gains being made until a lot more people in workplaces and communities are taking real control of those workplaces and the areas they live in on an ongoing and sustainable basis that brings real changes to their lives.

My 2p worth


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> 88 arrested was the count earlier i believe.
> 
> Derf doesn't give a shit because he's a limp authoritarian



11 cos of the Spacejackers' 'police uniforms', then 8 further, up to and including the RBS incident ... then the other 70-odd late evening/overnight


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

I don't think derf is trying to highlight the violence, rather ask the question"was it counter-productive" - to which my answer is a big fat YES. Protest only works if the message gets across, or you may as well stay at home. The message that got across from yesterday was "Thugs smash up bank. Man dies." Like tangentllama says, the press are not on the protestor's side. So if they want to get good press and stand any chance of their message reaching those who need to hear it, then there needs to be no violence.

And if your protest doesn't get any press (and therefore your message doesn't get across) without the violence, you have to wonder how valuable the act is in the first place.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 2, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Agreed. It was allowed to be smashed up.




I would go further. I believe that wanted it smashed up. The Police force want to send a strong message to Government not to fuck with their funding and they do this by showing how much they are needed. 

Maybe this is just me going the other way after years of believing the opposite but there is no other logical explanation for how this branch, giving its location and the precautions taken all around it, was left so vulnerable.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

There was one group there bent on aggression and violence from the start; the police.  I unequivocally condemn that violence.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

People in workplaces and communities won't join protests that they think have the potential to turn violent from within. Only NVDA (Non-violent direct action) works to bring workplaces and communities into the protest.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

What I find amazing is that only 8 people were arrested after the Spacejacker thing. It was overwhelmingly peaceful for the most part ... so presumably these 8 were mainly in connection with the RBS incident. Just 8 though.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> There was one group there bent on aggression and violence from the start; the police.  I unequivocally condemn that violence.



I don't believe that was the case. Some, albeit a small minority  of the protestors, will have viewed these protests as a means to clash with the police and will have been planning, in advance, a ruck with them. They won't have thought of the bigger picture at all.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I don't believe that was the case. Some, albeit a small minority  of the protestors, will have viewed these protests as a means to clash with the police and will have been planning, in advance, a ruck with them. They won't have thought of the bigger picture at all.


This is true to some extent, but it doesn't let the police off the hook. Their action at the camp was completely disproportionate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I don't believe that was the case.


It is the view of level-headed people who were there.


----------



## Spion (Apr 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> There was one group there bent on aggression and violence from the start; the police.  I unequivocally condemn that violence.


IME there's usually a minority of protesters who want confrontation too. But the cops have the power to determine whether that happens or not usually and benefit from it occurring. 

I won't condemn the anger of such smashy protestors but I don't think it achieves a thing and all in all it's a symptom of an impotent movement.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> This is true to some extent, but it doesn't let the police off the hook. Their action at the camp was completely disproportionate.



I agree. Climate Campers behaved impeccably.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I agree. Climate Campers behaved impeccably.


And as a result, got zero press.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And as a result, got zero press.



The riotous behaviour at the BoE eclipsed the Non-Violent Civil Disobedience of the Climate Camp. 

If all protestors had used Non-violent Civil Disobedience, then it would have been a different story in today's newspapers. There would have been photos of NVDA protestors being batoned in the south perimeter of the Climate Camp instead. The Public would have had a different impression. Instead, they remain alienated from the movement by violence.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

Not all publicity is good publicity. In fact as far as mainstream media is concerned, the vast majority of it is bad.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I don't think derf is trying to highlight the violence, rather ask the question"was it counter-productive" - to which my answer is a big fat YES.



Agreed. 



danny la rouge said:


> There was one group there bent on aggression and violence from the start; the police.  I unequivocally condemn that violence.




Possibly some of them but by no means all, just as some protestors would have turned up bent on trouble, but by no means all.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

And 'no publicity' defeats the point. My _suspicion_ is that if the protest had passed off peacefully with no incident, the front pages would not be "Happy hippies hand out flowers to smiling cops in sunny city sit-in" but "World leaders arrive in london for big pow-wow"

Someone beat the cynic out of me with a metal baton


----------



## Spion (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Instead, they remain alienated from the movement by violence.


IMO that's not the only or even the main reason that most people don't connect with this movement, which is de facto a vanguard unconnected to the bulk of people. And the reason it is unconnected is that it lacks a practical programme of action that can link the nastiness of the banks, climate change issues, war etc to the lives of the bulk of people who are doing shitty, 'flexible' jobs or have no job or are struggling to pay a mortgage/being repossesed etc.


----------



## Spion (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And 'no publicity' defeats the point. My _suspicion_ is that if the protest had passed off peacefully with no incident, the front pages would not be "Happy hippies hand out flowers to smiling cops in sunny city sit-in" *but "World leaders arrive in london for big pow-wow*"


Which is what the bulk of the news is anyway isn;t it? There are 20-odd leaders of government here trying to sort out the biggest shitstorm in the world economy for decades, with the threat of breaking up the globalised financial system a real possibility.

The protests are small beer really


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I don't think derf is trying to highlight the violence, rather ask the question"was it counter-productive" - to which my answer is a big fat YES.



But hilarious, none the less.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Possibly some of them but by no means all


So, just the ones who came up with the tactic of hemming people in?  Or just the ones batoning people who were minding their own business?

Yes, there were some broken windows, but what's worse?  Broken windows or broken heads?


----------



## Cressi (Apr 2, 2009)

The police used stainless steel telescopic batons.....whacking them on un protected skulls. The steel splits/tears the skin.

We cleaned up + patched up 2 young lads who were later allowed out to go to hospital. One lad had 3 cuts on his head meaning 2 blows to the head + one across the face.

The Police should not be armed with such dangerous weapons. If they must beat people with batons why not use rubber/plastic types that cause less damage .


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> IMO that's not the only or even the main reason that most people don't connect with this movement, which is de facto a vanguard unconnected to the bulk of people. And the reason it is unconnected is that it lacks a practical programme of action that can link the nastiness of the banks, climate change issues, war etc to the lives of the bulk of people who are doing shitty, 'flexible' jobs or have no job or are struggling to pay a mortgage/being repossesed etc.



Hence why my opinions of that so-called Anthropology Adjunct Professor are incredibly negative. He ought to have understood the process - instead, he acted like a schoolboy situationist without forethought for the whole body of the People that this crisis affects. He won't get his job back, imo.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I don't believe that was the case. Some, albeit a small minority  of the protestors, will have viewed these protests as a means to clash with the police and will have been planning, in advance, a ruck with them.


For sure, But they were easily identifiable and they weren't at the Climate Camp. What happened there was a fucking disgrace.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And 'no publicity' defeats the point. My _suspicion_ is that if the protest had passed off peacefully with no incident, the front pages would not be "Happy hippies hand out flowers to smiling cops in sunny city sit-in" but "World leaders arrive in london for big pow-wow"
> 
> Someone beat the cynic out of me with a metal baton



Maybe not for this one because of all the speculation about violence beforehand, but 4 or 5 peaceful, incident-free protests down the road... 

Violent protest is fucked up. 
Police responses are fucked up. 
Media coverage is fucked up.   And they're all caught in a vicious circle.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Violent protest is fucked up.
> Police responses are fucked up.


Were the police definitely "responding"?  And what is more violent - breaking a window or breaking a head?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> So, just the ones who came up with the tactic of hemming people in?  Or just the ones batoning people who were minding their own business?
> 
> Yes, there were some broken windows, but what's worse?  Broken windows or broken heads?





danny la rouge said:


> Were the police definitely "responding"?  And what is more violent - breaking a window or breaking a head?



You're repeating yourself, Danny.  

I'm not defending the police.  I don't agree with penning protestors in, they attempted to pen me in at a Palestine demo in January and I didn't like it one bit; and from what I've heard of events yesterday their behaviour both tactically and reactionary was unnecessary.  I can't comment much on their motivation as I am not privy to their policies.  I'm not going to agree with a suggestion that all police officers, as a group, and without exception are looking for a ruck and all protestors without exception are looking to avoid one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I'm not going to agree with a suggestion that all police officers, as a group, and without exception are looking for a ruck and all protestors without exception are looking to avoid one.


It isn't an allegation I made, though.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> 1) non-violence works, for example, the Bi'lin protests in Palestine-Israel held jointly by Israeli-Palestinian Jews and Arabs. search the Middle East forum on my posts there on the non-violence movement.
> 2) Best reason to do it - it leaves only the authorities as the ones meting out the violence. Agent provocateurs and random violence starters can be rooted out easier this way. We live in Britain, not Israel-Palestine. We need to build public support, at this early stage, all is not lost, but it could be lost in future if violent acts against persons or property continue. Non-violent demos will encourage others who might not join in to join in. If people think they're going to get hurt, either by acts of other protestors or by police, they won't join us and we lose.
> 3) Don't confuse non-violence with being against civil disobedience, e.g. squatting, sit-downs, repeated marches/demos to keep issue in news. Throwing missiles which might injure someone on the demo or even the police is potentially going to hurt someone and therefore violent.
> 4) with non-violence, money is needed to fight ineveitable court cases - see Anarchists against the Wall website for news of how long a fight needs to be kept running. It took 2 years to get the Bi'lin demo - held every week by - before Channel 4 news did a long piece on the issues.
> ...




Good post.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> IMO that's not the only or even the main reason that most people don't connect with this movement, which is de facto a vanguard unconnected to the bulk of people. And the reason it is unconnected is that it lacks a practical programme of action that can link the nastiness of the banks, climate change issues, war etc to the lives of the bulk of people who are doing shitty, 'flexible' jobs or have no job or are struggling to pay a mortgage/being repossesed etc.



Spion I have disagreed with you many a time on here over various issues but on this point I agree to a certain extent with you.

The average bod/worker (who is calling the protestors wankers as I speak) doesn't identify with the causes of the protestors as they do not seem relevant and the alternatives offered do not seem practical.

If the 'alternatives to angloamerican captialism' want to appeal beyond those who just want a punch up or middle class ex hippies then they must work to make this alternative relevant.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I'm not defending the police.


No, I'm not accusing you of that.

However, I'm merely pointing out that what we got in this morning's tabloids and news bulletins omitted scenes like these:












And:

https://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993


----------



## paolo (Apr 2, 2009)

Crispy said:


> And as a result, got zero press.



I'd challenge that. News24 were still covering them live last night, long after the smashy thing had finished.

I'm with Tangentlama on this one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2009)

Cressi said:


> The police used stainless steel telescopic batons.....whacking them on un protected skulls. The steel splits/tears the skin.


The batons are "Asps".


> We cleaned up + patched up 2 young lads who were later allowed out to go to hospital. One lad had 3 cuts on his head meaning 2 blows to the head + one across the face.
> 
> The Police should not be armed with such dangerous weapons. If they must beat people with batons why not use rubber/plastic types that cause less damage .


The police use asps because they're more portable, and they concentrate their force into a smaller area. It's supposedly all about "putting down" a crim/protester/innocent person with a single blow rather than several.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> IMO that's not the only or even the main reason that most people don't connect with this movement, which is de facto a vanguard unconnected to the bulk of people. And the reason it is unconnected is that it lacks a practical programme of action that can link the nastiness of the banks, climate change issues, war etc to the lives of the bulk of people who are doing shitty, 'flexible' jobs or have no job or are struggling to pay a mortgage/being repossesed etc.


I agree that the "movement" appears to lack coherence, and still very much has an air of people standing around _a la_ "Father Ted" with "down with this sort of thing" placards, and I suspect that "vanguardism" or the possibility of it has kept some protesters at home.
That said, what's the alternative? I for one don't want to see the Swappies pull a StwC on this.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Good post.



Seconded. Any violence loses nearly all of the backing of people who are not participating. Especially with a press obsessed with violence p0rn.


----------



## Cressi (Apr 2, 2009)

The police use asps because they're more portable

Peoples skulls should be the priority over portability.

Also the press always number how many police injured yet fail to mention how many protesters were.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2009)

Cressi said:


> The police use asps because they're more portable
> 
> Peoples skulls should be the priority over portability.


I wholeheartedly agree, but the Home Office don't.
You see, when it comes down to it, the police are what they are: Defenders of the establishment _status quo_. We're told that they're the upholders of "the law", but as you may have noted _vis-a-vis_ their head-whacking behaviour, "the law" is something they very easily set aside if the choice is between "the law" or their defending of privilege.


> Also the press always number how many police injured yet fail to mention how many protesters were.


That's because the police are obliged (for insurance purposes, typically enough) to collect data on officer injuries. They have absolutely no obligation to determine how many "civvies" they've injured.


----------



## derf (Apr 2, 2009)

editor said:


> There's a surprise. Derf concentrating on the actions of a tiny minority of protesters to highlight a negative aspect of the protest. Who'd a thunk it?



Come on Ed, re-read the OP with care and reconsider that post. 

I didn't make comment on what  the press are saying, just asked the people who were there what they thought of the coverage.

From what I have read on here and in other places it does seem that most of the people were keeping it happy but the few that did the RBS job have taken over most of the news.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 2, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Seconded. Any violence loses nearly all of the backing of people who are not participating. Especially with a press obsessed with violence p0rn.



Taking a small discreet straw poll of peoples conversations about the protests yesterday in my workplace it seems you are right.  The genuine grievances of people over Brown and others mishandling of economic matters and the demented 'private sector knows best' bollocks which we have all suffered from have been subsumed in anger and disgust at the protestors.  

These are not high flyers or bankers or those in reciept of humungous salaries these are just ordinary low grade staff.  

If these protests had been kept fluffy and dignified then much more good could have been done.  Also any abuses of power by the police would have had more impact.  however now what has happened is the violent actions oif the minority of protestors has filled our TV screens and tarred all those marching yesterday with the same shit filled brush.  

Well done lads.....not.


----------



## derf (Apr 2, 2009)

Cressi said:


> Also the press always number how many police injured yet fail to mention how many protesters were.



In all fairness, it may be hard to gather those stats as many injuries will be light and a lot of the people in question may not wish to be on record for various reasons.


----------



## Spion (Apr 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I agree that the "movement" appears to lack coherence, and still very much has an air of people standing around _a la_ "Father Ted" with "down with this sort of thing" placards, and I suspect that "vanguardism" or the possibility of it has kept some protesters at home.
> That said, what's the alternative? I for one don't want to see the Swappies pull a StwC on this.


A movement answers every issue we face by demanding the rich pay for what we need in terms of jobs, housing, environment etc and placing the solution under the control of workers in workplaces and communities.

Is that an existing alternative? No. But it never will be unless the idea is fought for


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 2, 2009)

Violence against property is not violence. 

Hitting people with metal poles, that's violence. Violence that comes with a price tag of a respectable amount of jail time when perpetrated by mere mortals.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

Unfortunately, your opinion is not the common one.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Violence against property is not violence.




Yes it is.    You might not want it to be, but it is.


----------



## Dowie (Apr 2, 2009)

Termite Man said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the "protestors" who smashed the window worked for the banks and did this to get the news attention away from the protestors message . Which they have been doing very well in the run up to as well with all the reports of "bankers have to wear their own clothes to work" type shit they have been spreading !



erm I think you're drifting way to far into the realms of conspiracy theories there

Police being a bit naive and leaving it unboarded so they could place people inside to monitor the protests through the one way glass would be more likely

Or if you're more anti police then I guess the police deliberately leaving it unboarded as some sort of distraction/sacrifice type target (it wasn't an important building yet had "RBS" stamped on it so would attract the plebs who like to trash things) would also be plausible - or as some have suggested leaving it unprotected as an excuse to kick off at the demonstrators (IMO also a bit far fetched as I don't believe their senior management want it to all kick off despite some of the officers on the ground perhaps being up for a ruck)

Either way I think the people who did it and the idiots at bank who started attacking police lines early in the day before they even got the riot gear on or had really done much to the protesters certainly helped to ruin the protests for the large majority.


----------



## purplex (Apr 2, 2009)

These actions may prove to be a watershed in what amount of police brutality is acceptable to the public. Maybe thats wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

purplex said:


> These actions may prove to be a watershed in what amount of police brutality is acceptable to the public. Maybe thats wishful thinking on my part.



Unfortunately it probably is.  Someone up the boards said their workmates were privy to some of the stuff that happened as bystanders and were truly shocked.  They'll tell their friends but I doubt there will be the media coverage or any watershed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Unfortunately it probably is.  Someone up the boards said their workmates were privy to some of the stuff that happened as bystanders and were truly shocked.  They'll tell their friends but I doubt there will be the media coverage or any watershed.


Sadly, I think that's true.  This is the usual pattern.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Yes it is.    You might not want it to be, but it is.



Where are you getting this information from? Is it defined in law somewhere?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk//node/552

https://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993

Email the information and links to the decent media. I've sent it to the BBC, don't know if it'll get past the Have Your Say vetting team, but if enough people do it, it just might raise it in their consciousness.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Where are you getting this information from? Is it defined in law somewhere?



http://www.answers.com/topic/violence

http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/index.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O86-violence.html

http://www.yourdictionary.com/violence

Show me where any of these exclude damage to property from the definition of violence. 


''My ex-husband would furiously beat on the door for hours demanding I let him in, he was never violent though.'' ???


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

And if he had beat on the door while you were out, that would still be violence? Towards the door?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> And if he had beat on the door while you were out, that would still be violence? Towards the door?



Yes.  Did you read the links to definitions of the word violence I gave you? 

At all?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

Yeah, I particularly liked this one: 



> Definition and typology of violence
> VPA addresses the problem of violence as defined in the World report on violence and health (WRVH), namely:
> 
> "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."



http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/index.html


----------



## hipipol (Apr 2, 2009)

that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." 
Which is why collective punishments like pulling peoples houses down are generally regarded as violent acts


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 2, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Yes.  Did you read the links to definitions of the word violence I gave you?
> 
> At all?



How can you be violent towards a door?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

Or the property of a corporation, since a corporation legally is an entity but not a person or group of persons?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 2, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Yeah, I particularly liked this one:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/index.html




You seem to like these a litte less: 



> : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b: vehement feeling or expression





> physical force used so as to injure, damage, or destroy; extreme roughness of action


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 2, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> The riotous behaviour at the BoE eclipsed the Non-Violent Civil Disobedience of the Climate Camp.
> 
> If all protestors had used Non-violent Civil Disobedience, then it would have been a different story in today's newspapers. There would have been photos of NVDA protestors being batoned in the south perimeter of the Climate Camp instead. The Public would have had a different impression. Instead, they remain alienated from the movement by violence.



can you give an example of meaningful political change occurring without violence being involved in some shape or form


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

Ghandi or am I being simple?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

India had a strong and violent resistance movement along with Ghandi


----------



## Crispy (Apr 2, 2009)

Thought it'd be complicated


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> ^This, except it provided a reason for the police to get their riot gear - they weren't 'riot police' until after RBS





Dan U said:


> not quite how i remember it.
> 
> they turned in to riot police after that small group of unprotected city police got a bit of a tonking and they retreated to just past the junction that RBS was on the corner of. there were small shielded riot police in line before RBS got smashed and the mounted police were at the bottom of the street as it all happened.



i'd agree with Dan U on this


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I agree. Climate Campers behaved impeccably.



but i agree with you here tangentlama


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I agree. Climate Campers behaved impeccably.



maybe, but the police allowed the camp to be set up with only a brief bit of token resistance from city plod

if theyd had to face the same level of policing and aggression that everyone else did, even before RBS then theres no way that they would have had their camp at all

so all the sniffy climate campers, some of whom were being very judgemental about the rest of us, and showed little in the spirit of solidarity, couldnt have had their event without the threat of violence down the road meaning the police didnt have the resources to stop the camp happening

i dont think thats a bad thing, i think a mix of targeted violence and nvda is probably the best strategy for a political movement - but i do not think that people should be judgemental about how others choose to express their resistance and when we're on the streets solidarity should be unconditional


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> i dont think thats a bad thing, i think a mix of targeted violence and nvda is probably the best strategy for a political movement


I'm with you on that one, as long as we're talking violence against property, not people.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> so all the sniffy climate campers, some of whom were being very judgemental about the rest of us, and showed little in the spirit of solidarity



in what way


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

well, i heard reports that they were sending out twitter messages saying come to our event if you dont want violence

but, more importantly, one of the organisers of the camp was on the outside of the kettle where there was a largely peaceful, bar the odd plastic bottle, but very spiky in mood presence until around 11.30 when police violently cleared the area

the camp organiser stood in front of the police line, effectively trying to use herself as a human shield protecting the police and started to harangue the very people who helped ensure the camp lasted as long as it did, about throwing bottles and how the police should be protected

although tbf the look on her face did change as the filth repeatedly violently attacked sit down peaceful protesters


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

there were also a couple of arrests very early on just after the camp was set up - there was little clear reason for the arrests, but any solidarity or resistance to this from the climate campers was non-existent


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

I dunno what to make of that, not having seen the events you describe or having seen the twitter messages (link?)

I got the text alert from climate camp, nothing in there about 'come to our event if you don't want violence'. But then again even if there had been, it may have been along the lines of 'if you're worried about having your head caved in by the police at BoE then come up to bishopsgate, it's peaceful here'.

Also, even if the organiser was doing what you see, i'm not sure it could be described as 'haranguing'?? Just a pleas for everyone to stay calm?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

i dont know about the twitter messages, was second hand information



> Also, even if the organiser was doing what you see, i'm not sure it could be described as 'haranguing'?? Just a pleas for everyone to stay calm?



no it was standing directly in front of the police line and screaming at people to stop throwing bottles and that they were now throwing bottles at her as well and they had to stop


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2009)

I've just watched the  again.  

Sickened and furious.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

@ smokedout

well, i don't really wanna argue about this, not really constructive.


----------



## the button (Apr 2, 2009)

Corax said:


> I've just watched the  again.
> 
> Sickened and furious.



It's only needless if you think the police are about maintaining "law & order" rather than maintaining control of the streets for themselves and their paymasters.

I agree it's sickening, but as far as the OB are concerned there's no difference between violent and non-violent protest. Just waiting for an opportunity to flex the muscle regardless of who's on the receiving end.


----------



## xplicit (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> can you give an example of meaningful political change occurring without violence being involved in some shape or form



Monday Demonstrations in East Germany


----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2009)

whilst admirable, they were hardly single handedly responsible for the fall the the Soviet Empire

and im willing to bet they kicked off on the edges more than once 



> well, i don't really wanna argue about this, not really constructive.



fair enough, wasnt trying to argue tho, just clarifying what happened


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> fair enough, wasnt trying to argue tho, just clarifying what happened



no worries


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2009)

the button said:


> It's only needless if you think the police are about maintaining "law & order" rather than maintaining control of the streets for themselves and their paymasters.
> 
> I agree it's sickening, but as far as the OB are concerned there's no difference between violent and non-violent protest. Just waiting for an opportunity to flex the muscle regardless of who's on the receiving end.



Yep.  I'm not surprised, I'm not shocked; but it still makes me feel physically sick.


----------



## paolo (Apr 2, 2009)

I couldn't tell from the video whether there was a reason for the police trying to push through.

Nonetheless, it seemed pretty clear who had the moral high ground. Noone looking at those pictures could say "oh look, there's those hooligans again"... not at all. Nice work. To me it's much more powerful viewing than that guy showboating outside RBS, completely unopposed.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I couldn't tell from the video whether there was a reason for the police trying to push through.



none at all.


----------



## xplicit (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> whilst admirable, they were hardly single handedly responsible for the fall the the Soviet Empire
> 
> and im willing to bet they kicked off on the edges more than once



Well I was actually there, and don't remember anything kicking off, but fair enough. And whilst not single handedly overthrowing the Soviet Empire we managed to achieve what we set out to achieve: freedom of travel, resignation of Erich Honecker, and eventually free elections. Which isn't half bad. 

Sorry for the derail anyway. As regards the OP, the reason I think the few people at the RBS didn't do the protest at large any favours was that they contributed to antagonising the general population. I reckon your average man and woman on the street hates the banks and greedy "fat cats". Correct. Yet at the same time that average person really _abhors _violence and wanton destruction, especially if they're British. I reckon quite a few people who would have been quite sympathetic to the protesters ended up condemning the whole thing just because of this isolated incident. Which is a shame.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> well, i heard reports that they were sending out twitter messages saying come to our event if you dont want violence


did you personally receive a message saying this?



			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> but, more importantly, one of the organisers of the camp was on the outside of the kettle where there was a largely peaceful, bar the odd plastic bottle, but very spiky in mood presence until around 11.30 when police violently cleared the area
> 
> the camp organiser stood in front of the police line, effectively trying to use herself as a human shield protecting the police and started to harangue the very people who helped ensure the camp lasted as long as it did, about throwing bottles and how the police should be protected
> 
> although tbf the look on her face did change as the filth repeatedly violently attacked sit down peaceful protesters


did you see this with your own eyes?


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> i'd agree with Dan U on this



No problem. Dan U has the more accurate description


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 2, 2009)

smokedout said:


> well, i heard reports that they were sending out twitter messages saying come to our event if you dont want violence
> 
> but, more importantly, one of the organisers of the camp was on the outside of the kettle where there was a largely peaceful, bar the odd plastic bottle, but very spiky in mood presence until around 11.30 when police violently cleared the area
> 
> ...



Maybe something good will come out of this?  Maybe it will serve to further radicalise people as they see that the police can be violent without provocation and the media misreport it/lie about it.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> No problem. Dan U has the more accurate description



It's what i saw too.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

It's just a herald of things to come. Sort your police force out, State. You can settle things down, or you can give the message of bring it on. If you want to back people into a corner, give people the impression that they're being backed into - kettled into a corner, physically and financially - fine. Is that what you really want?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

Is this what you want?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

Is this what you want from your people Mr Brown? Do you want them kettled? Y/N?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

does Gordon Brown post on here


----------



## the button (Apr 2, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's just a herald of things to come. Sort your police force out, State. You can settle things down, or you can give the message of bring it on. If you want to back people into a corner, give people the impression that they're being backed into - kettled into a corner, physically and financially - fine. Is that what you really want?



Play fair, now. The OB don't get to play with their riot gear that often and it's nice to see they're a bit better at it now than they were round Trafalgar Square nineteen years ago. Practice makes perfect.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

the button said:


> Play fair, now. The OB don't get to play with their riot gear that often and it's nice to see they're a bit better at it now than they were round Trafalgar Square nineteen years ago. Practice makes perfect.



 

what do you think button? more or less police violence at G20 than at Poll Tax?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> does Gordon Brown post on here



If he's that fucking clueless, maybe we could make some of the equally clueless MPs raise it in PM question time?

Do you want your electorate kettled Gordon? Is that what you want?

Y/N?


----------



## the button (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> what do you think button? more or less police violence at G20 than at Poll Tax?



Hmmm. I wasn't at G20, other than trying to get home (fucking anarchists ). I get the impression that the police violence in Trafalgar Square was less controlled -- lots of lone/small groups of OB taking on the demonstrators. Like I say, they're better at it now. Nice to see they're still better at taking on women and children than miners, anyway.


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> what do you think button? more or less police violence at G20 than at Poll Tax?



...apologies for this crude interruption but thousands were injured during the Poll Tax riot, including 542 police.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

the button said:


> Hmmm. I wasn't at G20, other than trying to get home (fucking anarchists ). I get the impression that the police violence in Trafalgar Square was less controlled -- lots of lone/small groups of OB taking on the demonstrators. Like I say, they're better at it now. Nice to see they're still better at taking on women and children than miners, anyway.



that's what i felt really, the horsey charges at Traf Sq/on Whitehall were the really scary thing, that didn't happen yesterday (at least I didn't see any)


----------



## the button (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> that's what i felt really, the horsey charges at Traf Sq/on Whitehall were the really scary thing, that didn't happen yesterday (at least I didn't see any)



Well, maybe one of the things the OB have learned (possibly from policing football is Never Allow A Crowd to Run At You). The charges at Trafalgar Square happened because there was space between them and us. Look at the way they cleared Bishopsgate -- there was a contained crowd with little room for manoevre. Then the riot cops walked (walked, didn't run) in there and pushed. A bit of baton usage certainly, but nowhere near what there could have been.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> what do you think button? more or less police violence at G20 than at Poll Tax?



Don't forget, the poll tax riot was after 11 years of Thatcher and all that entailed.  If the economy, jobs etc don't recover, then we're gonna see more unrest.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 2, 2009)

the button said:


> Well, maybe one of the things the OB have learned (possibly from policing football is Never Allow A Crowd to Run At You). The charges at Trafalgar Square happened because there was space between them and us. Look at the way they cleared Bishopsgate -- there was a contained crowd with little room for manoevre. Then the riot cops walked (walked, didn't run) in there and pushed. A bit of baton usage certainly, but nowhere near what there could have been.



yeah, I'd go with this too. the consequences of horse charges at Bishopsgate don't bear thinking about. I don't think even the Met would be that stupid.


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 2, 2009)

i have to say the sight of so many cameras focussing on so little action reminds me of why going to gigs is shit these days.


----------



## the button (Apr 2, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> yeah, I'd go with this too. the consequences of horse charges at Bishopsgate don't bear thinking about. I don't think even the Met would be that stupid.



True. They don't do it because they don't need to, rather than cos they're not cunts. 

Anyway, off to watch telly now.

Trip down memory lane ends here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 2, 2009)

cesare said:


> If he's that fucking clueless, maybe we could make some of the equally clueless MPs raise it in PM question time?
> 
> Do you want your electorate kettled Gordon? Is that what you want?
> 
> Y/N?



I think any politician would be grateful if the police were to cordon off the voters and not let them go to the toilet until they'd voted appropriately, while whacking them occasionally with batons and setting dogs on them by way of encouragement. It'd be a triumph for neo-liberal capitalism by any standards and a cure for voter cynicism and apathy.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 3, 2009)

all the news keeps saying well the leaders were doing what the protesters wanted without having to be urged on.

no the protesters don't want the rich to stay rich, all this talk about all the players being there g_20_ ,i dont think so.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Anyone who was present or watched the news reports will have noticed the throng of cameras and journalists around the vandalism. "Stage managed" might be going too far, but images of crazed anarchos smashing windows were exactly what the press wanted, and they got it. For those criticising police tactics (and I include myself in that) think how much worse said tactics would look without scenes of window-smashing to play alongside them. 

A few smashed windows won't be a blip on the Radar for the bank's insurance, and the damage will be fixed within days. All this pointless bit of criminal damage has achieved is the confirmation of prejudice. I hope the perps are tried and convicted, not only for the vandalism, but for grief they helped cause for the peaceful majority.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 3, 2009)

well if people can't make the distinction between heads being smashed and windows of glass being smashed what can we do.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Not smash windows and deny the press an excuse to portray it as "authorities over-react to vandals" would be a good start!


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 3, 2009)

huh?


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Think I explained it well enough above: the vandals gave the press their desired images of violence. Images that can be used to justify draconian tactics like "kettling". So the vandals hurt protesters more than the bank.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think any politician would be grateful if the police were to cordon off the voters and not let them go to the toilet until they'd voted appropriately, while whacking them occasionally with batons and setting dogs on them by way of encouragement. It'd be a triumph for neo-liberal capitalism by any standards and a cure for voter cynicism and apathy.



Aye.


----------



## derf (Apr 3, 2009)

Was it a quiet day yesterday. i only ask that because there was almost no mention of protests on TV this morning. All they had from London was shots from the day before with a couple of nutters smashing windows.
That and an interview with some thico in a mask claiming he was just following the crowd but had no idea why he was really there.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2009)

derf said:


> Was it a quiet day yesterday. i only ask that because there was almost no mention of protests on TV this morning. All they had from London was shots from the day before with a couple of nutters smashing windows.
> That and an interview with some thico in a mask claiming he was just following the crowd but had no idea why he was really there.



BBC Live was covering the g20 summit at the Excel Centre all day. They had an area about 1/4 of a mile away where people could demonstrate if they wanted to. There were about 400 people there, very disparate e.g. protesting about human rights in Ethiopia. It wasn't anything like the day before.

But there was an unplanned demo again outside the BoE. It was the result of Ian Tomlinson dying the day before. The thread's here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8955231#post8955231 and there's some footage towards the end. BBC Live covered it and also had an eye witness account of Ian Tomlinson's death.

There was a big police raid first thing in the morning on RampArt. 

All of it's covered on the main thread tbh.


----------



## rekil (Apr 3, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I couldn't tell from the video whether there was a reason for the police trying to push through.
> 
> Nonetheless, it seemed pretty clear who had the moral high ground. Noone looking at those pictures could say "oh look, there's those hooligans again"... not at all.


I think you're underestimating just how compliant, prejudiced, apolitical and amoral people can be. 

A comment on that video from a mod on another board 


> Advancing on a police line to a rallying call of "forward!" isn't my idea of going out of your way to be peaceful.
> 
> Looked to me like the squeezing was being done by the crowd.
> 
> I have a very simple strategy for not being batonned by the police: I avoid confrontation with the police.


Who _are_ these clitwits?


----------



## rekil (Apr 3, 2009)

cesare said:


> Do you want your electorate kettled Gordon? Is that what you want?
> 
> Y/N?






			
				gordon b said:
			
		

> _<nods patronisingly and adopts forced grin>_ Well I'm glad you asked me that question Cesare but firstly... _<waffles on about how lucky people are to live in a country where they're free to ask things like that then reams off a list of NL's  imaginary victories until interrupted and the question repeated>_ No let me finish, you've had your say, let me have mine, that's what democracy is about, etc.


.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2009)

Heh


----------



## Crispy (Apr 3, 2009)

Can I put  in for "clitwits" which I think strikes a blow for those concerned about the over representation of the penis when describing the stupid.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Apr 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Anyone who was present or watched the news reports will have noticed the throng of cameras and journalists around the vandalism. "Stage managed" might be going too far, but images of crazed anarchos smashing windows were exactly what the press wanted, and they got it. .



I watched it on tv - it looked ridiculous.  The cops stood at the back watching.  About 300 journos with cameras taking photos, a few hundred non violent protestors with camera phones trying to take pics as well and one or two blokes in balaclavas limply smashing a window or two.  The photos in the paper the next day made it look like a riot - camera angles perhaps.  It was certainly not a riot when I saw it on tv - it was ridiculous - even the commentry was trying to big it up into something that it wasn't.  It was like a pantomime.  If I could add speech bubbles there would be hundreds all saying the same thing 'this'll look great on youtube'.  It was a weird voyeuristic spectacle.  It was 99% percent photography and 1% direct action. Bonkers.

This whole thing with the G20 is making me wonder what the hell is the point - non violent protest doesn't get in the papers - I participated in a 5000 strong march down Oxford Street in March that didn't get a write up in any paper - it didn't fit with their narrow agenda.  Thats the main reason I decided not to participate, that and I knew the kind of write up the violence would get - once you get violence people lose repsect for you and your cause.

The majority of the general public doesn't have a clue about anarchism - they think it means 'the great unwashed' smashing things up.  Recent events only enforce that.  Until you get more people on your side then it won't be supported.  There aren't enough of us to chang ethings on our own so we NEED more people to give a fuck.  So the general public don't support it, they don't understand that we are fighting for their rights.  What the fuck can we do to change things?  This clearly doesn't work does it?  Look at the French - they'd be organising national strikes by now and burning sheep outside of MacDonalds (or something) their government has to listen then.  We've become a nation of celeb obsessed mongs, most of us don't give a fuck any more ((((Great British Public)))))


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> did you personally receive a message saying this?



no, i made clear it was second hand information



> did you see this with your own eyes?



yes and i challenged her about it afterwards and she said she wanted to protect the police.  As she was stood in front of a riot cop i asked her who she felt more intimidated by, the police or whoever threw the plastic bottle and she said the protesters

which was kinda ironic because 30 mins later the police started kicking the shit out of anyone in the near vicinity


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

xplicit said:


> Sorry for the derail anyway. As regards the OP, the reason I think the few people at the RBS didn't do the protest at large any favours was that they contributed to antagonising the general population. I reckon your average man and woman on the street hates the banks and greedy "fat cats". Correct. Yet at the same time that average person really _abhors _violence and wanton destruction, especially if they're British. I reckon quite a few people who would have been quite sympathetic to the protesters ended up condemning the whole thing just because of this isolated incident. Which is a shame.



i think the average middle class liberal abhors violence, im not sure that applies to the whole country

one of the more encouraging things yesterday was the number of working class kids whod turned up after seeing it kick off on the telly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Violence against property is not violence.


And yet "the law of the land" treats it as such, and sometimes punishes it more severely than violence against the person.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Or the property of a corporation, since a corporation legally is an entity but not a person or group of persons?



Depending, of course, on where they're incorporated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm with you on that one, as long as we're talking violence against property, not people.



Agreed, with the proviso that violence against the person by the state sometimes needs to be resisted physically.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> violence against the person by the state sometimes needs to be resisted physically.


Absolutely. It is a daft ethics that asks an individual to stand and be beaten because "violence is wrong"; self defence is not only justifiable, the responsibility for the force you use in repelling your assailant lies with them.


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Agreed, with the proviso that violence against the person by the state sometimes needs to be resisted physically.



Then we're all in joyful accord!

*narkist group hug*


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 3, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet "the law of the land" treats it as such, and sometimes punishes it more severely than violence against the person.



Yeah, in the long term, destroying property (e.g. a building) that could be used in a different way IS senselessly violent. Buildings have a long use-life and it's a waste of material resources/personpower to rebuild.


I agree that crimes against the person should bear the higher penalty, but equally trashing a space that could be used differently (i.e. from a shop to a nursery, or from private to public space) is still unnecessary act of violent destruction.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Yeah, in the long term, destroying property (e.g. a building) that could be used in a different way IS senselessly violent. Buildings have a long use-life and it's a waste of material resources/personpower to rebuild.
> 
> 
> I agree that crimes against the person should bear the higher penalty, but equally trashing a space that could be used differently (i.e. from a shop to a nursery, or from private to public space) is still unnecessary act of violent destruction.



whens the last time anyone in the UK destroyed a building on a protest?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Think I explained it well enough above: the vandals gave the press their desired images of violence. Images that can be used to justify draconian tactics like "kettling". So the vandals hurt protesters more than the bank.



vandalism isn't violence


----------



## Cobbles (Apr 3, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> vandalism isn't violence



So if someone stuck a baseball bat through your face you wouldn't regard that as an assault?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 3, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> So if someone stuck a baseball bat through your face you wouldn't regard that as an assault?


It's not the method, it's the target that makes the difference.

Strictly speaking, 'violence' _noun_ is against a person or animal. Other acts can be said to be 'violent' _adjective_- eg. a storm or an argument. The popular meaning of the word has broadened to include damage of property as well as person, which is a shame because Vandalism is a perfectly useful word.


----------



## Cobbles (Apr 3, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Vandalism is a perfectly useful word.



Indeed - it refers to violence against things.

e.g. if I were to spray someone with paint, that would be an assault (va violent act against a person), if I do the same to a building, it's the application of violence to a thing - vandalism.

Definition - take your pick - I've yet to come across a definition that restricts violence to humans:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-violence.html


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 3, 2009)

Crispy said:


> It's not the method, it's the target that makes the difference.
> 
> Strictly speaking, 'violence' _noun_ is against a person or animal. Other acts can be said to be 'violent' _adjective_- eg. a storm or an argument. The popular meaning of the word has broadened to include damage of property as well as person, which is a shame because Vandalism is a perfectly useful word.



Do you have any links that support what you say?  

None of the many dictionary definitions I looked at yesterday and linked to here suggested that violence is (or was) limited to being against a person or animal.  In fact they say you can commit violence to a text.  


I don't understand why people are getting so het up about this.  It doesn't alter the fact that beating people up is worse than breaking a window.

Personally I don't think all vandalism is violent, but some can be.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

> if I do the same to a building, it's the application of violence to a thing - vandalism.



or possibly just someone doing some decorating


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2009)

But that's an anthropomorphism isn't it? You can say that a piece of criticism does violence to its subject-matter, but that is a metaphor. It is not the same meaning as committing a violent act against a person.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

i dont think cobbles is able to cope with concepts like that


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> But that's an anthropomorphism isn't it? You can say that a piece of criticism does violence to its subject-matter, but that is a metaphor. It is not the same meaning as committing a violent act against a person.



Saying something is a dog is not the same as saying something is a Labrador. All labradors are dogs but not all dogs are Labradors. 

Violence against the person is a type of violence but violence has several definitions and it is not necessary for the violence to be against the person for it to be considered violence.   Nowhere do any of those dictionaries suggest such a thing. 

If a storm is a violent storm it is violent whether a human gets in the way of it or not.  Is the storm anthropomorphising?


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> vandalism isn't violence


The Oxford dictionary online has *violence* as "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill". Dictionary.com has "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing". The RBS windows were violated, damaged and abused! 

Four people have been charged over the incident. "Lithuanian Mindaugas Lenartavicius, 21, was charged with arson recklessly endangering life, and 18-year-olds Ben Shiells and Daniel Champion were charged with burglary, criminal damage and theft of a computer." A 17-year-old girl has been charged with burglary and "intent to commit damage". (I assume _The Telegraph_ mean criminal damage there.) 

I wish them all a swift and fair trial, and if they're guilty, a conviction, for the reasons given above. All have either-way or indictable only offences on the charge sheet, however, so a sympathetic jury might acquit them. 


pinkmonkey said:


> This whole thing with the G20 is making me wonder what the hell is the point - non violent protest doesn't get in the papers [...]


This is a fair point, but is getting in by committing criminal damage any better? It allows people to dismiss your cause. 

As this recession continues, I expect linked protests will get more press coverage.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2009)

But there is a difference. One is anthropomorphic and the other is not. I.e. it attributes human characteristics to non-human objects. Anthropomorphic categories don't mean things in the same way as ones that are directly attributable - they are _allegorical_.

This is why there is no legal offense involving the term 'violence' that relates only to things, the correct non-anthropomorphic term is 'damage', which is why it is the one that the law uses.

Shit, arguing semantics is a waste of time.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Shit, arguing semantics is a waste of time.


Fair enough. I'll continue to use the word "violence" in that context, allegorically if need be, and continue to avoid it in legal references (I use "criminal damage", which is the criminal offence).  

Of course assaults on people are worse than assaults on property, but both come from the same disregard for the law and the rights of others, and one can lead to the other. As Mr Lenartavicius's charge indicates. Neither has any place in a protest.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2009)

Sure, within language as a whole anything comprehensible is acceptable, however I don't think you can argue legal/philosophical points from allegory or metaphor.


----------



## Cobbles (Apr 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Of course assaults on people are worse than assaults on property, but both come from the same disregard for the law and the rights of others, and one can lead to the other.



Ohh that's a bit of a generalisation.

(a) Punter (1) takes a dislike to punter (2) and spits on their suit jacket

(b) A punter lobs a molotov cocktail through a school window. School burns to the ground.

Which is "worse" - (a) or (b)?

Whilst the aggrieved punter (2) in scenario (a) may well wish to take a key to punter (1)'s car, I'd contend that it'd be unlikely that anyone would wish to apply a violent act to the arsonist as the presumption would be that the Law will punish them once caught and convicted.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> ... however I don't think you can argue legal/philosophical points from allegory or metaphor.


I thought philosophers were rather fond of both!  

Whatever the appropriateness of "violence" with regards to property, the underlying belief, that physical force has no place in protest, remains the same. Attacking property and attacking people are forms of coercion. I believe in the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, not to tool up and put in the windows of RBS.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2009)

I don't agree that attacking the property of a corporation is a form of coercion. Who is being coerced?


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Ohh that's a bit of a generalisation.


Your scenario actually helps my case that assaulting people and assaulting property are linked activities. Of course many would say that razing a school is worse than gobbing on a jacket. Depends if you define spitting at someone as assault (I know the law does). Better example would be one punter glassing another: I'd say that was worse than destroying an (empty) school, but not by much.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I don't agree that attacking the property of a corporation is a form of coercion. Who is being coerced?


Attempted coercion then. You're still trying to get what you want by force. "Do what we say, or we'll put your windows in." Disproportionate power doesn't change the mindset. 

Or else no thought has gone into it and it's a simple bout of anger. Either way, the protestors have broken something that isn't theirs to break and must pay. (If they're guilty as charged.) We can't be selective about whose property we protect, or no property is safe. Would you agree with this?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Saying something is a dog is not the same as saying something is a Labrador. All labradors are dogs but not all dogs are Labradors.
> 
> Violence against the person is a type of violence but violence has several definitions and it is not necessary for the violence to be against the person for it to be considered violence.   Nowhere do any of those dictionaries suggest such a thing.
> 
> If a storm is a violent storm it is violent whether a human gets in the way of it or not.  Is the storm anthropomorphising?



to call a storm violent would be to use the word as an adjective, to say that the people who trashed the RBS committed an act of violence is using the word as a noun

it is quite common for words to have different grammatical uses and which have different meanings

to say that breaking a window is an act of violence is ludicrous, an abuse of the word and raises bizarre possibilities

is writing grafitti violence?  breaking an egg?


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 3, 2009)

smokedout said:


> to say that breaking a window is an act of violence is ludicrous, an abuse of the word and raises bizarre possibilities
> 
> is writing grafitti violence?  breaking an egg?




...breaking the RBS windows was an act of political violence, due to the presumed motivations of the individuals responsible and the overall context in which it occurred. Very different to breaking an egg methinks.

As to whether graffitti constitutes an act violence is more difficult, and I guess would depend a lot on the extent of damage caused by the 'artwork' in question.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> ...breaking the RBS windows was an act of political violence, due to the presumed motivations of the individuals responsible and the overall context in which it occurred. Very different to breaking an egg methinks.



it was a political act, agree completely

but it was an act of vandalism, not violence


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 3, 2009)

smokedout said:


> it was a political act, agree completely
> 
> but it was an act of vandalism, not violence



...vandalism would imply a mindless and wanton act of damage to property, as opposed to one which was political in motivation.


----------



## Cressi (Apr 3, 2009)

They divided the crowd just by RBS.....and oddly enough it was the only building in that vicinity not boarded up. The crowd wanted to join up.....why 2 single lines of police wanted to separate them is a tactical decision. It is a co incidence that RBS was standing there naked in between? The crowd were kettled up?

The people hitting the glass knew it was just glass. The people hitting skulls knew it wasnt glass.

All the little shops were boarded up. Either RBS couldnt afford to board it up..............or as seen on one photo the police were inside waiting..............

so entrapment.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> ...vandalism would imply a mindless and wanton act of damage to property



not at all, is graffiti wanton and mindless


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 3, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Ohh that's a bit of a generalisation.
> 
> (a) Punter (1) takes a dislike to punter (2) and spits on their suit jacket
> 
> ...



Poster A sets up a spurious thought experiment to justify his bollox

Poster B calls him a wanker


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

Cressi said:


> All the little shops were boarded up. Either RBS couldnt afford to board it up..............or as seen on one photo the police were inside waiting..............
> 
> so entrapment.



gotta be honest, must as i dislike conspiracy theories and paranoia it does look a bit that way

theyve got form for it - Euston 1999, when they left a knackered old police van in the crowd which duly got burnt out

cue daily mail shock horror pics of punks jumping up and down on a burning police van 

them were the days (sighs wistfully)


----------



## Cressi (Apr 3, 2009)

The small bank was sacrificed ...so the police can say ....hey we get the mob at bay plus on film...full frontal because they were inside waiting.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> did you personally receive a message saying this?



just spotted, from the climate camps twitter



> # If you don't like the violence elsewhere, come to climate camp. It's completely peaceful! And good fun! #g206:17 AM Apr 1st from txt



http://twitter.com/climatecamp


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> not at all, is graffiti wanton and mindless



.....


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> And like I said I think it would depend on the extent of property damage caused by the grafitti and the messge being conveyed by the grafitti. The difference between say 'give peace a chance' emblazoned on the wall of some derelict building in a deserted side street to 'banker scum' on the windows of some financial institution in the heart of London.



and theres the problem in using the word violence to describe property damage, its messy and based upon personal prejudice

graffiti is vandalism as is breaking windows

bored of this now though


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> to call a storm violent would be to use the word as an adjective, to say that the people who trashed the RBS committed an act of violence is using the word as a noun
> 
> *it is quite common for words to have different grammatical uses and which have different meanings*
> 
> ...



I agree with the bit in bold. Words can have different definitions.  

Breaking a window can be an act of violence. It can also be an act of bored insouciance, youthful exuberance and other things too.  




> Main Entry:  	violence
> Part of Speech: 	noun
> Definition: 	extreme force, intensity




from http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/violence


The definition according to dictionaries I have found do not give violence as narrow a definition as people here have been saying.  I've already asked for links on this thread that support the claims that it does, because I can't find any. The word is not reserved solely for how you want it to be used.

I too, am bored.


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 4, 2009)

what a joke.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

come on come on one more vote and its even!!!11


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> what a joke.



don't pretend you don't feel the same way about dell hardware


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

Cressi said:


> The small bank was sacrificed ...so the police can say ....hey we get the mob at bay plus on film...full frontal because they were inside waiting.


hmm, is this the case?

would people climb into a buiklding and write graffiti and smash its computers if there was _a team of cops standing inside it already?_


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> don't pretend you don't feel the same way about dell hardware





That's a curiously round hole in the glass innit. Of course, there's no way that it would have been previously scored from inside, perish the thought.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> hmm, is this the case?
> 
> would people climb into a buiklding and write graffiti and smash its computers if there was _a team of cops standing inside it already?_



Yes


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> That's a curiously round hole in the glass innit. Of course, there's no way that it would have been previously scored from inside, perish the thought.



oh come on!

lol, actually lol'd at that


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

votes draw level!!


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> oh come on!
> 
> lol, actually lol'd at that



Perhaps you haven't been out long enough to see some of the photos/placing of the OB yet


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> That's a curiously round hole in the glass innit. Of course, there's no way that it would have been previously scored from inside, perish the thought.



the guy throwing the laptop looks like a rent-an-anarchist. All brand new clothes and nicely ironed scarf from topshop??

ok I know anarchists can dress alright from time to time but the picture sums up a lot.

I'd also guess about 10-15 grands worth of camera equipment in the picture alone.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> the guy throwing the laptop looks like a rent-an-anarchist. All brand new clothes and nicely ironed scarf from topshop??
> 
> ok I know anarchists can dress alright from time to time but the picture sums up a lot.
> 
> I'd also guess about 10-15 grands worth of camera equipment in the picture alone.



It's just too good to be true, can't take my eyes off of you etc


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 4, 2009)

He is very well turned out, that chap, isn't he? I like the "A" on the hat too, nice touch.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 4, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He is very well turned out, that chap, isn't he? I like the "A" on the hat too, nice touch.



Nothing he's wearing looks more than a week old.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

Azrael said:


> The Oxford dictionary online has *violence* as "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill". Dictionary.com has "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing". The RBS windows were violated, damaged and abused!



I understand how you can damage a window, but violate and abuse?  Surely those are to do with the subjectivity of the, errr...subject?  A window isn't a subject, it's an object, surely?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I thought philosophers were rather fond of both!
> 
> Whatever the appropriateness of "violence" with regards to property, the underlying belief, that physical force has no place in protest, remains the same. Attacking property and attacking people are forms of coercion. I believe in the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, not to tool up and put in the windows of RBS.



You could just as easily argue that private property is a form of coercion.  In fact, I do argue that.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> the guy throwing the laptop looks like a rent-an-anarchist. All brand new clothes and nicely ironed scarf from topshop??
> 
> ok I know anarchists can dress alright f*rom time to time* but the picture sums up a lot.
> 
> I'd also guess about 10-15 grands worth of camera equipment in the picture alone.



From time to time?  I was wearing a Diesel shirt last night I'll have you know!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2009)

PAD1OH said:


> what a joke.



I don't know, all those photographers and not one of them tried to stop damage to public property 

Also, either the guy doesn;t give a toss about being identified or he's not done a good job of covering up. Or he was a stooge 

Anyone know if he's been arrested?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He is very well turned out, that chap, isn't he? I like the "A" on the hat too, nice touch.



To be fair he does have a frayed left sleeve


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> I don't know, all those photographers and not one of them tried to stop damage to public property
> 
> Also, either the guy doesn;t give a toss about being identified or he's not done a good job of covering up. Or he was a stooge
> 
> Anyone know if he's been arrested?



he's very fucking likely to be if people keep posted that picture around the internet

cant we have it removed fridgey


----------



## the button (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> cant we have it removed fridgey



I agree. He's standing a couple of feet away from an enormous hole in a window and it still looks like he's going to miss with that monitor. It's the decline of English cricket distilled into a single image.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> he's very fucking likely to be if people keep posted that picture around the internet
> 
> cant we have it removed fridgey



It's all over the internet and media 

What did he think was going to happen, surrounded by bloody photographers lol


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

is it, hadnt seen it anywhere else

still think it should be taken down tho

its bad form


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

I've definitely seen it a few times. There are loads of other ones as well, all uploaded to the net by the photographers. Loads of them are Reuters if you do a search.

It's not bad form; it was stuntism, deliberately designed to get attention and wanting the attention.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's not bad form; it was stuntism, deliberately designed to get attention and wanting the attention.



it was, but it looks like his mask slipped down, he probably didnt want to be doing bird for it


----------



## the button (Apr 4, 2009)

"I was simply trying to return the monitor to its rightful owners without trespassing on their property, your honour."


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> he's very fucking likely to be if people keep posted that picture around the internet
> 
> cant we have it removed fridgey



the effect of having it removed from here will be negligible. he may have already been nicked anyway fwiw.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> It's not bad form; it was stuntism, deliberately designed to get attention and wanting the attention.



I suppose that by simulating revolution in iconic form it might be possible to accelerate the arrival of the real thing.  Is that the basic idea?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> the effect of having it removed from here will be negligible. he may have already been nicked anyway fwiw.



possibly, but has urban now got so right wing mad:) that its acceptable for people committing a lil bit of direct action have there identities potentially revealed on here


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> it was, but it looks like his mask slipped down, he probably didnt want to be doing bird for it



There were only 8 arrests across the entire area including RBS, the OB carriers were just around the corner from RBS, the OB were already in the building. Have you not seen Paulie's photos? It's worth reading the main thread.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I suppose that by simulating revolution in iconic form it might be possible to accelerate the arrival of the real thing.  Is that the basic idea?



Yeah, within seconds they'd swapped the soft hats for helmets, shields and asps, and emerged from round the corner lol


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> possibly, but has urban now got so right wing mad:) that its acceptable for people committing a lil bit of direct action have there identities potentially revealed on here



it's just being realistic isn't it? his identity isn't being revealed on here any more than by a few thousand other internet/media outlets


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> Yeah, within seconds they'd swapped the soft hats for helmets, shields and asps, and emerged from round the corner lol



It was the proportion of demonstrators taking photos that suggests the image was more important than the reality with regard to these events.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It was the proportion of demonstrators taking photos that suggests the image was more important than the reality with regard to these events.



Wrt that particular photo and others like it, the people surrounding weren't protesters, they were mostly professional photographers.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It was the proportion of *demonstrators* taking photos that suggests the image was more important than the reality with regard to these events.



they were all demonstrators??? well i never!

oops, synchro posting with cesare!


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> Wrt that particular photo and others like it, the people surrounding weren't protesters, they were mostly professional photographers.



I think that makes my point even stronger.  The point of the violence was to create images.  Such images will have a far greater effect than ransacking a couple of banks.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think that makes my point even stronger.  The point of the violence was to create images.  Such images will have a far greater effect than ransacking a couple of banks.



Yep, stunt that worked for the anarchists, police, and press. And the images have a value, eh.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think that makes my point even stronger.  The point of the violence was to create images.



really? how do you know that then?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> And the images have a value, eh.




As I say, a far greater value than the reality they represent.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, a far greater value than the reality they represent.



meaning what exactly?


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, a far greater value than the reality they represent.



To all of the three main groups concerned.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 4, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> meaning what exactly?



Meaning that having photos of people smashing bank windows on the front page of every newspaper in the world is more valuable than actually smashing the bank windows.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> Perhaps you haven't been out long enough to see some of the photos/placing of the OB yet



Now that you mention it!!!

Look closely at the picture. _The police have thrown the monitor into the crowd and he is trying to catch it_. This is a stitch up of Orgreaves proportions 

Ces: what about the possibility that, as all witness accounts i've seen sao far state, the windows were broken, people went in, people came out and the cops went in? Then the cops stayed there leading to some later shots of police camera teams in the building?

seriously who would go into a building and commit criminal damage if they were looking at a fucking camera team?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

cesare said:


> There were only 8 arrests across the entire area including RBS, the OB carriers were just around the corner from RBS, the OB were already in the building. Have you not seen Paulie's photos? It's worth reading the main thread.



fuck it, link me. happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> fuck it, link me. happy to be proven wrong.



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8951691&postcount=1115

There's more in that and related threads, but I can't be arsed to do your reading for you.


----------



## paolo (Apr 4, 2009)

Appalled as I am with the policing approach (you're *all* trouble, yes you lot with the kids and tents) I'm unconvinced, yet, on the sting idea.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8951691&postcount=1115


that suggests the cops let RBS get smashed up, which i think is quite likeley, but it doesn't suggest or prove there were cops in the building.



cesare said:


> There's more in that and related threads, but I can't be arsed to do your reading for you.


fair enough pal.


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> seriously who would go into a building and commit criminal damage if they were looking at a fucking camera team?



As valid a point as it is, lets not forget that you had people committing criminal damage outside the branch right in front of huge numbers of photographers.  If people are stupid enough to do it two feet in front of the world's press one imagines a FIT team inside the premises isnt going to make them stop doing what they were doing.


----------



## paolo (Apr 4, 2009)

There being lots of photographers there is - meh (on the sting idea). They'll gravitate like that.


----------



## Wilson (Apr 4, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He is very well turned out, that chap, isn't he? I like the "A" on the hat too, nice touch.



"A" for Atlanta Braves, that hat is brand spanking new & in the latest flat billed bad boy style 

then theres the studs in the denim jacket, who really does that these days?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 4, 2009)

agricola said:


> As valid a point as it is, lets not forget that you had people committing criminal damage outside the branch right in front of huge numbers of photographers.  If people are stupid enough to do it two feet in front of the world's press one imagines a FIT team inside the premises isnt going to make them stop doing what they were doing.



Ah, but being the kind of person that attends such events, i can tell you that the press don't really affect thiongs either way (dumb as it is). A uniformed officer would. The press don't have the power of arrest, or at least not the inclination.


----------



## Nixon (Apr 4, 2009)

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1023


----------



## e19896 (Apr 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Now that you mention it!!!
> 
> Look closely at the picture. _The police have thrown the monitor into the crowd and he is trying to catch it_. This is a stitch up of Orgreaves proportions
> 
> ...


 it was a set up people do a google on this The smashing of The RBS G20: a cut n past from a urban post and a comment from a good source:

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/twitter-exposes-rbs-false-flag-whatreallyhappened/


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 4, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> So if someone stuck a baseball bat through your face you wouldn't regard that as an assault?



that would violence idiot


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2009)

e19896 said:


> it was a set up people do a google on this The smashing of The RBS G20: a cut n past from a urban post and a comment from a good source:
> 
> http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/twitter-exposes-rbs-false-flag-whatreallyhappened/



Is that what you define a "good source" as?


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> is it, hadnt seen it anywhere else
> 
> still think it should be taken down tho
> 
> its bad form



That image I posted is from Boston.com. I had no probelm posting it because it's been on so many sites.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/


----------



## Cobbles (Apr 4, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> that would violence idiot



My original post was in response to #145 which read: "vandalism isn't violence". As you can see from teh subsequent posts, there was a broad consensus that vandalism involves violence.

BTW - "_that would violence idiot_" - pissed? or did you just sit at the back of the class and gaze out of the window when English was being taught?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

Poor Cobbles, ((((Cobbles))), he's a bit thick.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 4, 2009)

he's relying on ad hominem too now, bless!


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> My original post was in response to #145 which read: "vandalism isn't violence". As you can see from teh subsequent posts, there was a broad consensus that vandalism involves violence.



all vandalism?

was there a broad consensus?

or someone for once loosely agreed with you and you got a bit carried away with yourself


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2009)

*Oi! Tax!*

What d'ya reckon to the OB filming from inside then, eh?


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

smokedout said:


> all vandalism?
> 
> was there a broad consensus?
> 
> or someone for once loosely agreed with you and you got a bit carried away with yourself



You're only concentrating on effect that the act has upon the property, when you ought to examine the agents (human motive, environment, human agents) which created the act in the first place. 

It's meaningless for you to discuss whether or not vandalism is an act of violence by separating the agents of that act from the effects of the act, which is effectively what you have tried to do.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

cesare said:
			
		

> What d'ya reckon to the OB filming from inside then, eh?



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8964465&postcount=242


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> There is a high probability that the OB FIT team was inside it from the beginning, and that the protestors were kettled/herded into the vicinity of RBS as part of a pre-agreed tactic.



Thing is you don't know what time that pic was taken in relation to the first break of the window.  

I don't see any computers in that pic which suggests it might have been taken later.  What is he holding btw, gun, camera, other? ETA: obviously a camera dur.. 


I still can't think of a plausible reason why RBS would think they of all people needn't have bothered boarding up their windows.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

True enough re. time-relativity.
I withdraw my probability statement.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> You're only concentrating on effect that the act has upon the property, when you ought to examine the agents (human motive, environment, human agents) which created the act in the first place.



the human motive though is down to your own personal prejudice

so you may say the RBS' make-over was violence, i might say it was art, the person who did it may say it was done to create a better environment for all of us

which is why violence is not a useful description in these circumstances


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

smokedout said:


> the human motive though is down to your own personal prejudice
> 
> so you may say the RBS' make-over was violence, i might say it was art, the person who did it may say it was done to create a better environment for all of us
> 
> which is why violence is not a useful description in these circumstances



So you're saying it was an avant-garde (vanguard) situationist 'stunt' ?  
And the better environment it caused was ?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 5, 2009)

cesare said:


> What d'ya reckon to the OB filming from inside then, eh?



alright. I've fucking had it with this shit. The windows were broken. People went in. Cops went in after they came out and left a photographer there.

thats the chronology. I have eye witness accounts.

your photo isn't time stamped or shit your just making the same assertion repeatedly. i've checked this out.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 5, 2009)

im not particularly saying it was anything other than a larf, just pointing out that when human agency is used as one of the factors to define violence then the prejudices of the person using the word also become a factor rendering it a meaningless description

violence is easy to define, it may be in self defence, it may even be consensual (ie BDSM) but the deliberate act of physically harming another human being is violence

the destruction of proerty, graffiti etc is violence depending on your personal prejudice, it is however always vandalism


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> alright. I've fucking had it with this shit. The windows were broken. People went in. Cops went in after they came out and left a photographer there.
> 
> thats the chronology. I have eye witness accounts.
> 
> your photo isn't time stamped or shit your just making the same assertion repeatedly. i've checked this out.



Thanks. Duly noted.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> There is a high probability that the OB FIT team was inside it from the beginning, and that the protestors were kettled/herded into the vicinity of RBS as part of a pre-agreed tactic.


There's fuck all probability of any of that. I notice no-one's spouting such conspiralunacy about the other bank which had its windows smashed on Wednesday...


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> There's fuck all probability of any of that. I notice no-one's spouting such conspiralunacy about the other bank which had its windows smashed on Wednesday...



how clever of you to use my retracted quote and post it up nearly 20 mins after posts were changed. 

i go with Tax's post above and not cesare's suggestion that the fit were inside - as i've made that clear.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> alright. I've fucking had it with this shit. The windows were broken. People went in. Cops went in after they came out and left a photographer there.
> 
> thats the chronology. I have eye witness accounts.
> 
> your photo isn't time stamped or shit your just making the same assertion repeatedly. i've checked this out.



No anarchist in their right mind would accept that they were fitted up. You've checked this out with who? The press photographers surrounding the windows? The OB? Or are there people that got in that didn't actually get nicked then?

Pull the other one.

So, amidst all this smashing of glass and looting, the OB take time to film from the inside out, with camera gear that they just happened to have lying about?

Lolz.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

The FIT always carry cameras, cesare.

cesare, your words & pictures had me believing for around 20 mins that the FIT were already inside, recording!

(I like your posts though, but unless there is concrete proof for your claim, I can't believe it)


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't care if anyone believes it or not 

It was a win/win for anarchists and OB alike.

The anarchists can strike a blow, and the OB have the perfect excuse for donning full riot gear from their carriers just around the corner and start kettling.

And the press win too - all those images.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> how clever of you to use my retracted quote and post it up nearly 20 mins after posts were changed.


A whole 20 minutes? How terrible of me! Perhaps you shouldn't post such bollocks in the first place?


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

cesare said:


> Or are there people that got in that didn't actually get nicked then?


Yes there are. One of them even put his video - shot from the roof - up on Youtube!



cesare said:


> The anarchists can strike a blow, and the OB have the perfect excuse for donning full riot gear from their carriers just around the corner and start kettling.



The kettling started way before the windows were put in, the RBS branch was outside the initial cordon.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> Yes there are. One of them even put his video - shot from the roof - up on Youtube!
> 
> 
> 
> The kettling started way before the windows were put in, the RBS branch was outside the initial cordon.



I watched those two people (one male, one female) being searched on the roof by soft hats, on BBC Live. And yeah, the OB did start to cordon off earlier, but not in full riot gear.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> A whole 20 minutes? How terrible of me! Perhaps you shouldn't post such bollocks in the first place?



I didn't. I was responding to other posts, and clearly used the word probability. 

However, it's entirely probable that the kettling of the protestors into that space was purposefully done in order to bring them into proximity with the unboarded RBS building - RBS being an oft-touted symbol of responsibility in today's financial crisis.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I didn't. I was responding to other posts, and clearly used the word probability.


In an entirely nonsense way, there is no high probability of what you claimed, because it simply wasn't true.



> However, it's entirely probable that the kettling of the protestors into that space was purposefully done in order to bring them into proximity with the unboarded RBS building


Still talking bollocks, the kettling was into the area around the Royal Exchange, there were breakouts in other directions as well, e.g. Queen Victoria Street.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

cesare said:


> I watched those two people (one male, one female) being searched on the roof by soft hats, on BBC Live.


Did you watch the male get released back into the demo? I did, in the real world.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

Slightly off topic but how would YOU have dealt with threatened public disorder?  This doesn't have to be 'anarchist' disorder but football or any other occasion where public disorder is threatened.

From seeing the actions of riot police both in the UK and overseas Kettling is the least worst option at least from a public order point of view.

It doesn't antagonise or hurt innocent people like a baton charge into a crowd to remove ringleaders would;

It doesn't allow troublemakers to roam streets and cause trouble at multiple places;

People are inconvenienced but not hurt.  

If an element in the kettled crowd starts to cause trouble then they are easily identififed for later action. 

Britain got off lightly due to the Mets investment in 'crowd science'.  Besides that I'd rather be kettled than take a baton round which is what continental police resort to when confronted by violent thugs.   


Anyone with more than half a brain can see that violent public disorder needs to be controlled the question is how to do it in ways that facilitate lawful protest but which doesn't endanger the lives and property of others who are uninvolved.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

It wasn't violent public disorder, Zachor.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> It doesn't antagonise or hurt innocent people like a baton charge into a crowd to remove ringleaders would;


It clearly does antagonise people.

A baton charge to remove ringleaders doesn't exist, baton charges are used to gain ground, nothing else.



> It doesn't allow troublemakers to roam streets and cause trouble at multiple places;


I suggest you have a thorough read of the Mayday 2001 judgment, it clearly does allow exactly that.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/480.html

If an element in the kettled crowd starts to cause trouble then they are easily identififed for later action. 



> Besides that I'd rather be kettled than take a baton round which is what continental police resort to when confronted by violent thugs.


They do? And are you seriously suggesting this kettle was to deal with 'violent thugs'?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Britain got off lightly due to the Mets investment in 'crowd science'.  Besides that I'd rather be kettled than take a baton round which is what continental police resort to when confronted by violent thugs.


There were no violent thugs at the Climate Camp, you idiot.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2009)

Protesters on the outside of the kettle, being blocked from joining the protest, were free to run around the streets as they pleased, which I personally witnessed as a group charged down Cannon Street, resulting in 2 windows being smashed in a branch of HSBC.

So if it's to prevent that, it doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

editor said:


> There were no violent thugs at the Climate Camp, you idiot.



Maybe if they'd moved when the police told them to they wouldn't have got done over.

I have no problem with kettling people (its better than baton rounds after all) to avoid trouble spreading but I do feel that more should be done to identify those kettled who are obviously either a) not part of the demo and b) obviously not troublemakers and let them go.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Maybe if they'd moved when the police told them to they wouldn't have got done over.


My understanding is that the Climate camp people weren't asked to move. That's why everyone's so wound up! Or am I completely missing something?


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:
			
		

> I have no problem with kettling people


As is evident from your attitudes towards the violent and deadly treatment of peaceful non-violent demonstrations by Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs against the Hafrada Wall cutting Palestinians off from their farmland. 

BTW, Kettling is not putting a kettle up yer bumhole, Zachor (which only you could find pleasurable)


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Maybe if they'd moved when the police told them to they wouldn't have got done over.


When was that exactly?



> obviously not troublemakers and let them go.


One of the squats full of 'troublemakers' was raided on Thursday, and described by police as containing: "People with piercings, people without piercings, people with dogs – the sort of people you might expect to see at a pop festival.", what do these obviously not-'troublemakers' look like?


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

winjer said:


> It clearly does antagonise people.
> 
> A baton charge to remove ringleaders doesn't exist, baton charges are used to gain ground, nothing else.




My mistake I should have said 'snatch squads'.  

Kettling does antagonise people but the question is does it make uncontrolled violence more or less likely?  


winjer said:


> I suggest you have a thorough read of the Mayday 2001 judgment, it clearly does allow exactly that.
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/480.html
> 
> If an element in the kettled crowd starts to cause trouble then they are easily identififed for later action.
> ...



I'll check out that link later

The kettle keeps the potentially violent in one place.  What is needed is some method of separating 'sheep from goats' if you see what I mean so that non violent protestors can be removed as quick as possible from the kettle.  This could be coupled with providing transport outside the immediate demo area for those released from the kettle so tht they are released far away from the demo to prevent people joining the demo again on that day.  

Its a balance really nobody wants to curtail the right to protest but nobody in their right mind wants bloodshed and damage.  

I've seen loads of demos that have gone bad and I can't recall any of them actually bringing about any concrete change for the better.  Wapping didn't, the Poll Tax riot didn't and so on and so on.  

Things need changing in the world sure I dont disagree with that but ego wank protests / riots don't.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 6, 2009)

Riots and disorder have led to much positive social change.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> My understanding is that the Climate camp people weren't asked to move. That's why everyone's so wound up! Or am I completely missing something?




I would like to see this matter looked into by some form of inquiry.  If the CC people were NOT obstructing the police then hopefully the mistakes that the police may well have  made can be corrected for next time.  

What we have is two different stories with an element of truth in each.


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> As is evident from your attitudes towards the violent and deadly treatment of peaceful non-violent demonstrations by Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs against the Hafrada Wall cutting Palestinians off from their farmland.
> 
> BTW, Kettling is not putting a kettle up yer bumhole, Zachor (which only you could find pleasurable)



I've nothing against Israeli Jews and Arabs demonstating peacefully agaisnt the Security Fence.  I would like to see the Palestinians compensated for the loss of farmland or given proper access to it.  I'm semi in favour of the Security Fence as it has reduced dramatically the number of suicide bombers.

I do know the normal definition of kettling.  <yawn>

I've never tried putting a kettle up my arse but it would probably be more pleasurable than listening to traitors like Galloway.


----------



## Spion (Apr 6, 2009)

Kettling = encirclement. Encirclement is an age-old tactic. To imagine the state will not use tactics such as this is as naive as to imagine they won't crack your head when they deem it necessary. The state is not neutral and never will be. It exists to enforce the will of the ruling class. The only solution is to not allow yourself to be dictated to by the state on demonstrations by resistance in self defence and not be forced into kettle-type situations in the first place.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Besides that I'd rather be kettled than take a baton round which is what continental police resort to when confronted by violent thugs.



That's pathetic.

"Would you like kettling or baton charging?

"Erm, neither actually"

"No, no, sir you have to choose one or the other"


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> That's pathetic.
> 
> "Would you like kettling or baton charging?
> 
> ...



Well it is a choice between one or the other.  I've seen the police crack heads unecessarily at Wapping and I can't help thinking that kettling would have been a better tactic to use back then.  

Or would you rather face the French CRS they don't take no prisoners and you'd have some interesting scars to show later on.  Rather have the British way to be honest.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:
			
		

> The kettle keeps the potentially violent in one place.


See, you're doing that 'pre-emptive strike' thing again. Justifying collective punishment based on what psychological studies have shown of how people get increasingly annoyed when confined into a small space. The penning creates the raised annoyance levels, which might cause violence, and that probability, however small, is used to justify continuing the penning - it's cyclic and annoyance/anger is actually caused by the act of penning. 

Penning/kettling people into Gaza - after all, we can pretty much guarantee that they're still pissed off at having their land/house confiscated 40 years ago without any civil justice or compensation, so this justifies penning them into Gaza for 40 years, which causes flare up of anger and hopelessness, so this cyclic justification continues.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Well it is a choice between one or the other.  I've seen the police crack heads unecessarily at Wapping and I can't help thinking that kettling would have been a better tactic to use back then.
> 
> Or would you rather face the French CRS they don't take no prisoners and you'd have some interesting scars to show later on.  Rather have the British way to be honest.



Binary thinking.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

Government Minister: "If citizens discover how much we're screwing them and their children, they'll turn nasty"
MET: "Shall I pop the kettle on, Sir"?


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> See, you're doing that 'pre-emptive strike' thing again. Justifying collective punishment based on what psychological studies have shown of how people get increasingly annoyed when confined into a small space. The penning creates the raised annoyance levels, which might cause violence, and that probability, however small, is used to justify continuing the penning - it's cyclic and annoyance/anger is actually caused by the act of penning.
> 
> Penning/kettling people into Gaza - after all, we can pretty much guarantee that they're still pissed off at having their land/house confiscated 40 years ago without any civil justice or compensation, so this justifies penning them into Gaza for 40 years, which causes flare up of anger and hopelessness, so this cyclic justification continues.



This is why I'm in favour of 'intellegent kettling' where intellegence gained about troublemakers and observation evidence from the protest itself is used to release those who just want to peacefully protest and detain ever dwindling numbers of people until you are just left with a hard core to mop up.

Your Gaza analogy is a world of fail I'm afraid as it doesn't acknowledge the facts that Israel has kept Gaza supplied with food, fuel, water etc etc for years and the fact that Israel said 'OK you want you own govt we'll pull out our people and its yours' only to face missiles and yet more hatred.  I'm all in favour of compensating Palestinians but only if they act in a peaceful way.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

No, Israel has not kept Gaza supplied with food and water for years, you barefaced liar.

Anyway, enough of this - as you can see - Zachor is incapable of thinking for himself. He believes what he is told by the authorities their press-releases and accepts hardline excuses for justifying unspeakable acts from state towards citizen.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> The kettle keeps the potentially violent in one place.


No it doesn't. Why not do a little more reading, a little less posting?



> This could be coupled with providing transport outside the immediate demo area for those released from the kettle so tht they are released far away from the demo to prevent people joining the demo again on that day.


So only violent people should be allowed to demonstrate, in case they turn violent?


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

winjer - Zachor is a troll.


----------



## xes (Apr 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> winjer - Zachor is a troll.



but zachor is right, kettling keeps all the violent police in one place. A nice big line of weaponry. 

(I suggest using hooks to break that up btw, but that's probably not bessed discussed on here)


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> What is needed is some method of separating 'sheep from goats' if you see what I mean so that non violent protestors can be removed as quick as possible from the kettle.  This could be coupled with providing transport outside the immediate demo area for those released from the kettle so tht they are released far away from the demo to prevent people joining the demo again on that day.


*More confused*

Transport people who haven't done anything wrong to another area ? Then what ? Forcibly put them on trains to somewhere they probably didn't come from & thus have no reason to go to ? And thus make sure that they'll be even less happy with the outcome 

That's merely physically moving the kettle elsewhere afaics 

Sounds more like "running someone out of town" in the wild west


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Well it is a choice between one or the other.  I've seen the police crack heads unecessarily at Wapping and I can't help thinking that kettling would have been a better tactic to use back then.
> 
> Or would you rather face the French CRS they don't take no prisoners and you'd have some interesting scars to show later on.  Rather have the British way to be honest.



But they were both 'kettling' and attacking people with batons people last week, so whilst the methods of policing employed in the continent are probably more brutal by comparison, surely the potential for the British police to behave in a similar way is plainly apparent. And should protestors have reacted more confrontationally to the Police attacks, then this would have upped the ante no end. You'll also find that the Police did employ 'kettling' like tactics in the 80s when policing industrial disputes and political demonstrations. And quite frankly it's totally indefensible on the basis that firstly, it denies innocent people a fundamental human right, namely the freedom of movement, on the basis that they are participating in a political protest; and by  definition criminalises people for daring to express dissent through mass protest. 

It's not a case of either or, I think it's more a case of preventing the slide into a Police state, and ensuring the Police remain fully accountable for their actions, which after last week, just doesn't seem to be the case at all in this country.


----------



## albionism (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Well it is a choice between one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Police used both kettling _and_ the cracking of heads simultaniously on 1st April.  TWIT.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Your Gaza analogy is a world of fail I'm afraid as it doesn't acknowledge the facts that Israel has kept Gaza supplied with food, fuel, water etc etc for years



This is a lie isn't it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Maybe if they'd moved when the police told them to they wouldn't have got done over.


For someone who claims to have photographed lots of demos, you appear to have a rather tenuous grasp of standard police operating tactics.


> I have no problem with kettling people (its better than baton rounds after all) to avoid trouble spreading...


Except, of course, that "kettling" isn't an alternative to baton rounds or CS gas, it's an indiscriminate alternative to targeted crowd control, and it incites trouble (through arbitrary imprisonment) in the people who are "kettled".
Really, learn some basic tactics and strategy, then perhaps you might stop talking out of your arse.  


> but I do feel that more should be done to identify those kettled who are obviously either a) not part of the demo and b) obviously not troublemakers and let them go.


And you do that...how?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> Kettling = encirclement. Encirclement is an age-old tactic. To imagine the state will not use tactics such as this is as naive as to imagine they won't crack your head when they deem it necessary.


Yep, "encirclement" is "first fortnight at Sandhurst" stuff, the sort of thing any chess-player learns very early on. It's so simple even plod can do it (mostly) without fuck-ups. 


> The state is not neutral and never will be. It exists to enforce the will of the ruling class. The only solution is to not allow yourself to be dictated to by the state on demonstrations by resistance in self defence and not be forced into kettle-type situations in the first place.


Yep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> This is why I'm in favour of 'intellegent kettling' where intellegence gained about troublemakers and observation evidence from the protest itself is used to release those who just want to peacefully protest and detain ever dwindling numbers of people until you are just left with a hard core to mop up.


Unfortunately for your fantasy of "intelligent kettling", neither the police nor the intelligence services (despite what your watching of "Spooks" tells you) have the technology or manpower to manage such a "real-time" system. If they could do so, they would need to use tactics like "kettling" in the first place, you 24-carat twat.


> Your Gaza analogy is a world of fail I'm afraid as it doesn't acknowledge the facts that Israel has kept Gaza supplied with food, fuel, water etc etc for years...


Really? There was me thinking that UNRWA could take most of the credit for that, with the state of Israel often attempting to put the brakes on even the bare minimum the UN are able to manage (hence the massive smuggling of food and fuel).


> and the fact that Israel said 'OK you want you own govt we'll pull out our people and its yours' only to face missiles and yet more hatred.  I'm all in favour of compensating Palestinians but only if they act in a peaceful way.


In other words "if they conform to the will of the state of Israel". 
I seem to recall similar attitudes in central Europe in the 1930s.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> I'm in favour of 'intellegent kettling'




Is that like "smart bombs" that only kill bad guys?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

To make a complaint against the police call IPCC 08453 002 002, London City police 02076012222, Met Authority 02072020202. For items lost during G20 'police riots' call 02076063110 - If you don't have a complaint call them anyway for a chat, they don't have anything better to do now they haven't got innocent people to beat up :

Have fun:


----------



## Zachor (Apr 6, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This is a lie isn't it.



No it isn't.  This is what I'm getting from responsible sources within Israel (inc progressive Zionist sources) which I feel are far more reliable than the more partisan stuff that is going round Left activist / islamist circles.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> (inc progressive Zionist sources)


Progress of a sort for you to admit that there are other kinds.

Did you read the Mayday judgment yet?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> No it isn't.  This is what I'm getting from responsible sources within Israel (inc progressive Zionist sources) which I feel are far more reliable than the more partisan stuff that is going round Left activist / islamist circles.


What's this got to do with Wednesday's protests please?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 6, 2009)

editor said:


> What's this got to do with Wednesday's protests please?



its his new 'belonging' to a new group thing - wait till she (or he i shouldn't assume...) dumps him


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 6, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Is that like "smart bombs" that only kill bad guys?



Surgical kettle!


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 6, 2009)

Zachor said:


> No it isn't.  This is what I'm getting from responsible sources within Israel (inc progressive Zionist sources) which I feel are far more reliable than the more partisan stuff that is going round Left activist / islamist circles.



I think Amnesty International would disagree with you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Surgical kettle!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 7, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think Amnesty International would disagree with you.


the anti-Semitic bastards!


----------

