# G8 marchers = fucking wankers (discuss)



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

can someone explain how:

1. walking around with an iron bar smashing up people's cars
2. rampaging through scotland destroying shop fronts
3. stoning and attacking police officers

has ANYTHING to do with G8, or even influence it's outcome and agenda.

most of the people up there are fucking scum who have nothing better to do in their lives than cause trouble and cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in policing and insurance costs. money better spent towards the people they are campaigning for surely?

I understand peaceful protest, and think it should be done, but what message do the people up there think they are putting across??

grrr........


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> most of the people up there are fucking scum who have nothing better to do in their lives than cause trouble and cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in policing and insurance costs.



what marvellously original criticisms, put so originally


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jul 6, 2005)

Do taxpayers pay for insurance costs?  I thought that was the policy holders.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> money better spent towards the people they are campaigning for surely?



Did you know that there have been protest at almost ( if not all ) g8 meetings . Just because geldof has decided he wants to make poverty history this year doesn't mean the protesters are there for that reason ! I expect some of them are anti-capatalists/anarchist who want an end to the capatilast system and the plight of the third world poor isn't the main thing on their agenda !


----------



## neilh (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. walking around with an iron bar smashing up people's cars
> 2. rampaging through scotland destroying shop fronts
> ...


but most of the people up there didn't smash up cars or shops.


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

the fact is tho, they ARE costing taxpayers and insurance companies (us in effect), shit loads of money that could be better spent. how would you feel if it was your car, or your business?


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

can you explain why:

1. you believe everything you read in the newspapers.
2. think that politicians care about peaceful protests
3. aren't concerned with the massive disruption and cost of the ludicrous overpolicing of the whole thing


----------



## WasGeri (Jul 6, 2005)

Buddy Bradley said:
			
		

> Do taxpayers pay for insurance costs?  I thought that was the policy holders.



Well, indirectly I suppose - as insurance premiums for shops and businesses will probably get passed on to the customer by way of prices.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

"most of the people up there are fucking scum"


Really? So which of the protesters _aren't_ scum?


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> insurance companies (us in effect)


How so?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> Well, indirectly I suppose - as insurance premiums for shops and businesses will probably get passed on to the customer by way of prices.



Shops and businesses set their prices by considering the market for their goods, not by comparison with their bottom line...


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.



why?


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

the one's who aren't scum are the people there for the correct reasons.

when have government's listened to peacful protestors? when have they ever listened to violent abusive ones??


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> . how would you feel if it was ... your business?



Are you seriously concerned about the owners of Burger King?

Don't worry, I reckon they'll cope.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> the one's who aren't scum are the people there for the correct reasons.
> 
> when have government's listened to peacful protestors? when have they ever listened to violent abusive ones??



the correct reasons ! give me strength ! What are the correct reasons then ? Is it to make poverty history ? If so why not just stick your tongue back up geldofs arse


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> the one's who aren't scum are the people there for the correct reasons.



What is the correct reason to be there?



> when have government's listened to peacful protestors? when have they ever listened to violent abusive ones??



Poll Tax riots.


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Can someone explain how:

1. sitting in an expensive luxury hotel enjoying a sumptuous banquet
2. being helicoptered in at great expense
3. being kept at a 'safe distance' from those who voted for you and whose views you are meant to represent

has ANYTHING to do with ending world poverty and preventing the human race wiping itself out? 

My priorities are obviously different from sorter's


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> why?



Er, let's see? Because they are in my way? Because while they have the right to legally protest, they do not have the right to stop me from legally going about my business, taking my kid to school or whatever else it is I want to do.
They would soon get pissed off if I boarded up their fucking doors on benefit day wouldn't they?


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Are you seriously concerned about the owners of Burger King?
> 
> Don't worry, I reckon they'll cope.



BKs are franchises so the Burger King company probably won't own the restaurant...


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> the one's who aren't scum are the people there for the correct reasons.




What's a 'correct reason'? And what's it got to do with anyone else why someone is there? Are you saying that if there's someone there who's been completely peaceful and within the law, but is there for wider ranging reasons than just the G8, then they're scum?


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Er, let's see? Because they are in my way? Because while they have the right to legally protest, they do not have the right to stop me from legally going about my business, taking my kid to school or whatever else it is I want to do.
> They would soon get pissed off if I boarded up their fucking doors on benefit day wouldn't they?



So you would actually risk killing someone for the sake of getting to work on time?


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

just because geldof is championing a cause, it doesn't mean it's a bad one. i personally am indifferent to bob geldof, but we are very rich, and large swathes of globe are very poor. 

any way, this is not the thread topic, the topic is why twats are up there on a rampage...


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

I don't have a problem with the peaceful protestors, it's the ones who are wrecking the lives of innocent, local people who piss me off. Smashing up cars that belong to someone who has probably worked hard to get it. By all means protest by why fuck up the lives of ordinary citizens who are unlucky enough to be living near this G8 summit?


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> They would soon get pissed off if I boarded up their fucking doors on benefit day wouldn't they?




FFS    I know a hell of a lot of people who are there right now....I can only think of one of them that's on benefits (not that it's fucking relevant anyway). Stop being so fucking snobby.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.



i remember being on a reclaim the streets once where one driver put her foot down and went straight into the protesters.  fucking cunt.  if the fluffier wing hadn't got in the way she would have been dragged out of her car and given a slap.  how fucking dare you use your car as a weapon against peaceful protesters.

she was lucky she was surrounded by hippies who don't tend to go for street justive to calm down the spiky types who do.  she still had to fucing turn round, and got her car kicked in for her trouble.  personally if i was a copper i'd have done her for attempted murder.  but then if there were any coppers there they'd probably have let get away with it.

i'd ahve thought better of you than that, but there you go.


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with the peaceful protestors, it's the ones who are wrecking the lives of innocent, local people who piss me off. Smashing up cars that belong to someone who has probably worked hard to get it. By all means protest by why fuck up the lives of ordinary citizens who are unlucky enough to be living near this G8 summit?



I've had my car window broken before. Didn't wreck my life... 
Besides which I've seen no evidence that there has been widespread destruction of personal property.

Besides which, you're prepared to run people over because they've inconvenienced you, which makes your opinions on violence a tad hypocritical.


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2005)

That really is a tabloid misconception SS,  most of them are students or recent graduates


and i know you hate the tabloids..


'They would soon get pissed off if I boarded up their fucking doors on benefit day wouldn't they?'


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 6, 2005)

roll on out the ill thought out stereotypes.

I know substantial numbers of people who've gone up. Of those who are of working age, i can think of 2 currently unemployed (out of about 30). The rest work in everything from call centres, to mental health nurses, teachers, to factory workers


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> just because geldof is championing a cause, it doesn't mean it's a bad one. i personally am indifferent to bob geldof, but we are very rich, and large swathes of globe are very poor.
> 
> any way, this is not the thread topic, the topic is why twats are up there on a rampage...



well you've made it part of the topic by claiming people are up there for the wrong reasons ! Are we just supposed to ignore your inane rampblings lifted from some shite paper or from St. Geldofs mouth when it's complete bollocks !


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.



And who the fuck are you to decide that your interest in using the road takes precedence over anyone else's?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 6, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> Can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. sitting in an expensive luxury hotel enjoying a sumptuous banquet
> 2. being helicoptered in at great expense
> ...




wot he said ^^^^


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Oh and by the way SS, someone did get run over today...I'm not sure how serious it was, but I hope that the cops driving the van got wherever the where going on time. Cos that's what counts.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> So you would actually risk killing someone for the sake of getting to work on time?


I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.
It's not the local residents' faults that this summit happens to be where they live but these selfish fucks don't care do they? They just think they can do exactly as they please and make things worse for the genuine protestors who don't do this sort of thing. I have alot of respect for them, not these other idiots who are only there to do one thing.


----------



## neilh (Jul 6, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> roll on out the ill thought out stereotypes.
> 
> I know substantial numbers of people who've gone up. Of those who are of working age, i can think of 2 currently unemployed (out of about 30). The rest work in everything from call centres, to mental health nurses, teachers, to factory workers


i went to stirling straight from the end of my call centre shift, and didn't smash anything/anyone so theres 2 of your stereotypes i dont fit.


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

thanks SS. violence and vandalism isn't big, or clever. it's mindless.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 6, 2005)

the worlds fucked............


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.
> .




For christs sake - I don't take shit from any one either, but I can't think of any situation where I would risk someones life to make sure I got to work on time, no matter how much of a twat I thought they were.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.
> It's not the local residents' faults that this summit happens to be where they live but these selfish fucks don't care do they? They just think they can do exactly as they please and make things worse for the genuine protestors who don't do this sort of thing. I have alot of respect for them, not these other idiots who are only there to do one thing.



ever let facts or reality get in the way of a good old rabid rant, eh stobart


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> thanks SS. violence and vandalism isn't big, or clever. it's mindless.



and of course every single marcher is a violent thug  If you really believe that your in no position to go round calling people mindless are you !


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> And who the fuck are you to decide that your interest in using the road takes precedence over anyone else's?


Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.



Gosh, you are hard   



> It's not the local residents' faults that this summit happens to be where they live but these selfish fucks don't care do they? They just think they can do exactly as they please and make things worse for the genuine protestors who don't do this sort of thing. I have alot of respect for them, not these other idiots who are only there to do one thing.



And what about the fucking police? On Monday some local residents were getting involved precisely because they don't give a shit about who they trample on, so long as they get to stop them doing something without their sodding permission.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?



I'm sure there are other routes to take ! And wouldn't you find out what the protest is about before you act ?


----------



## exosculate (Jul 6, 2005)

rednecks are the majority.................


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> It's not the local residents' faults that this summit happens to be where they live but these selfish fucks don't care do they? They just think they can do exactly as they please and make things worse for the genuine protestors who don't do this sort of thing. I have alot of respect for them, not these other idiots who are only there to do one thing.



Seeing as I can't be bothered to say it myself, I'll just agree with what he said.


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?



Is that what they were doing all day was it? Preventing parents from getting to school?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> Seeing as I can't be bothered to say it myself, I'll just agree with what he said.


He? He?


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> can you explain why:
> 
> 1. you believe everything you read in the newspapers.
> 2. think that politicians care about peaceful protests
> 3. aren't concerned with the massive disruption and cost of the ludicrous overpolicing of the whole thing



How can you make the assertion that someone who has made 30 posts on this messageboard, believes everything he reads in the newspapers


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 6, 2005)

i reckon you'd be hard put to fin an anarchist on here who thinks that putting in a car window is anything but stupid.

However what numbers are we talking about here? From the reports i've read (mainly mainstream media) it was hardly a tornado of destruction - as i understand it, a bit of graff, possibly a bank with a couple of windows put in (reports are very vague),the KFC and two cars had their windows put in. As for this huge amount if anti-police violence (which i personally have no ideological problem with, my only complaints would be tactical), 21 police recieved minor injuries. This is hardly molotovs and barricades. It's about the same level of violence as seen in most city centres across the country every friday night!


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?



Um, walk to school maybe? 

What's a 'mother kid' BTW?

Erm...trying to get world leaders to take action on world poverty and getting your kid to school.....which is more important? Hmmmm.....


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

why don't the peaceful people tell the dick heads to fuck off then?

by the way, i don't read a newspaper, or watch the TV much. i do have a brain to make my own opinions. i don't need bob or the sun!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> How can you make the assertion that someone who has made 30 posts on this messageboard, believes everything he reads in the newspapers


Can't be arsed with this thread now. I have to go and wash my Lexus.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> How can you make the assertion that someone who has made 30 posts on this messageboard, believes everything he reads in the newspapers



Probably from the fact he is assuming that *all* the protesters are violent thugs and there for the "wrong" reasons ! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that kind of view hasn't exactly had a lot of thought put into it ! I'd certainly expect much more damage if everyone went with the intention of mayhem and destruction !


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> why don't the peaceful people tell the dick heads to fuck off then?
> 
> by the way, i don't read a newspaper, or watch the TV much. i do have a brain to make my own opinions. i don't need bob or the sun!



you haven't shown that with your posts though !


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> Probably from the fact he is assuming that *all* the protesters are violent thugs and there for the "wrong" reasons ! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that kind of view hasn't exactly had a lot of thought put into it ! I'd certainly expect much more damage if everyone went with the intention of mayhem and destruction !



Couldn't see the word "all" mentioned in there at all.

This is going to be fun. Because I remember a little while back, I was hounded for being "silly" for assuming that someone saying "gays support the miners" means "all" gays support the miners.

Can you all make your fucking minds up?!


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.




fair enough,  support the staus quo all you like, cos it fucking suits your purposes but don't fucking denigrate people who try and change things.  yeah, there are some fucking idiots up there, people who i personally wouldn't want to know, but there are plenty of people up there who aren't idiots.

the only social change that has ever happened ever has been pushed forward by protest.  you wouldn't even be allowed to vote if it wasn't for violent protest.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> by the way, i don't read a newspaper, or watch the TV much. i do have a brain to make my own opinions. i don't need bob or the sun!



So what made you draw the conclusions that you have? Which, from what I can tell, is that there are tens of thousands of people smashing up Scotland? (I'm basing that on the fact that you said most of the protesters are scum, and smashing stuff ep seems to be your criteria for what make some one scum).


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> i reckon you'd be hard put to fin an anarchist on here who thinks that putting in a car window is anything but stupid.
> 
> However what numbers are we talking about here? From the reports i've read (mainly mainstream media) it was hardly a tornado of destruction - as i understand it, a bit of graff, possibly a bank with a couple of windows put in (reports are very vague),the KFC and two cars had their windows put in. As for this huge amount if anti-police violence (which i personally have no ideological problem with, my only complaints would be tactical), 21 police recieved minor injuries. This is hardly molotovs and barricades. It's about the same level of violence as seen in most city centres across the country every friday night!



The scale is irrelevant in my eyes, I have the utmost respect for the vast majority of the demonstrators, hell, I can even understand why a fair bit of the violence happened, these things spread, if you see the police beating the bejasus out of someone who was, to an extent, on 'your side' then you'd have some reason to leap to their defence. It's the twattish minority, the tiny minority, which starts these things that get me, the police are twats when they do it, and this folks are twats when they do it, saying that the other deserves it is no defence, whatever the sins of the police are turning a large scale protest like this into some kind of small scale riot will only result in a load of innocent people getting hurt.


----------



## Tatiana (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i remember being on a reclaim the streets once where one driver put her foot down and went straight into the protesters.  fucking cunt.  if the fluffier wing hadn't got in the way she would have been dragged out of her car and given a slap.  how fucking dare you use your car as a weapon against peaceful protesters.
> 
> she was lucky she was surrounded by hippies who don't tend to go for *street justive * to calm down the spiky types who do.  she still had to fucing turn round, and got her car kicked in for her trouble.  personally if i was a copper i'd have done her for attempted murder.  but then if there were any coppers there they'd probably have let get away with it.
> 
> i'd ahve thought better of you than that, but there you go.



   Jesus wept.


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.
> It's not the local residents' faults that this summit happens to be where they live but these selfish fucks don't care do they? They just think they can do exactly as they please and make things worse for the genuine protestors who don't do this sort of thing. I have alot of respect for them, not these other idiots who are only there to do one thing.



Here's an idea: hold the next G8 in a favela in Buenos Aires or a shanty in Addis Ababa - G8 leaders finally get to see real poverty and Stobart doesn't get held up by the associated protest. A win-win situation!

NB: only the first reason is a serious one.


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i remember being on a reclaim the streets once where one driver put her foot down and went straight into the protesters.  fucking cunt.  if the fluffier wing hadn't got in the way she would have been dragged out of her car and given a slap.  how fucking dare you use your car as a weapon against peaceful protesters.
> 
> she was lucky she was surrounded by hippies who don't tend to go for street justive to calm down the spiky types who do.  she still had to fucing turn round, and got her car kicked in for her trouble.  personally if i was a copper i'd have done her for attempted murder.  but then if there were any coppers there they'd probably have let get away with it.
> 
> i'd ahve thought better of you than that, but there you go.



Where do you live?

Can I get 200 people around your house and just "Blockade" in the name of peaceful protest or as per usual, do you just make it all up as you go along?


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Couldn't see the word "all" mentioned in there at all.
> 
> This is going to be fun. Because I remember a little while back, I was hounded for being "silly" for assuming that someone saying "gays support the miners" means "all" gays support the miners.
> 
> Can you all make your fucking minds up?!



The thread title pretty much indicates that all the marcers are causing trouble 

*G8 marchers = fucking wankers*

seems there is no distinction there between the ones causing trouble and the ones who aren't !


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Can't be arsed with this thread now. I have to go and wash my Lexus.



you do that


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Tatiana said:
			
		

> Jesus wept.





Are you seriously picking them up on a spelling mistake?!


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.



I agree, especially if it was a policeman.


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> the only social change that has ever happened ever has been pushed forward by protest.  you wouldn't even be allowed to vote if it wasn't for violent protest.


I hadn't thought about it like that. I've been wondering what purpose the violence has and if it is in fact counterproductive but when you put it like that...........


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?



So you'd run someone over just to get your precious little darling to school on time?

Don't be such a fucking half wit.

You don't half come out with some shit some times, but then being married to a copper ain't that fucking bright is it?


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> The thread title pretty much indicates that all the marcers are causing trouble
> 
> *G8 marchers = fucking wankers*
> 
> seems there is no distinction there between the ones causing trouble and the ones who aren't !



No it doesn't. 

You just want to argue about stupid things rather than condemn those involved on violence who do make the rest look bad.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.


Then you'd end up facing manslaughter charges and rightly so.


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> I understand peaceful protest, and think it should be done, but what message do the people up there think they are putting across??
> 
> grrr........


"grrr........"

Yeah I think that's the message they want to put across.


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Then you'd end up facing manslaughter charges.



Anyone who blockades cars should be nicked for false imprisonment.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> No it doesn't.
> 
> You just want to argue about stupid things rather than condemn those involved on violence who do make the rest look bad.



It doesn't ? 

How do you interpret that then ? 

If the thread title had been *violent G8 marchers = fucking twats* I'd have agreed but the title and sorters comments don't make that distinction !


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Then you'd end up facing manslaughter charges and rightly so.



That's assuming she killed anyone.


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Anyone who blockades cars should be nicked for false imprisonment.



Does that apply to the OB as well?


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> It doesn't ?
> 
> How do you interpret that then ?
> 
> If the thread title had been *violent G8 marchers = fucking twats* I'd have agreed but the title and sorters comments don't make that distinction !



I agree they are wankers.

What's your point?


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Anyone who blockades cars should be nicked for false imprisonment.



Fucking hell ! Do you really believe that ! A blockaded car doesn't mean your "imprisoned" . You need to get some perspective ! Maybe people who park on the pavements and block them should be arrested as well then  !


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

longdog said:
			
		

> Does that apply to the OB as well?



No. They are there to uphold the law and they normally have a legitimate reason for stopping cars.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> I agree they are wankers.
> 
> What's your point?



my point is sorter is calling all the G8 marchers fucking wankers and making no distinction between the violent and non-violent protesters , something which you earlier claimed he wasn't doing


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Anyone who blockades cars should be nicked for false imprisonment.


So anything creating a traffic jam should also be charged similarly too? Broken down cars, injured pedestrians etc?

And how can you be "imprisoned" when there are usually between 2 and 5 doors available on every vehicle?


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2005)

Surely local residents have known that the summit was going on? If I knew there were going to be loads of protestors potentially blocking roads I'd give my kids a day off school and tell work I couldn't come in. There's other alternatives to running someone over. I'd also do my best to get my car off road so that it couldn't get vandalised.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> No. They are there to uphold the law and they normally have a legitimate reason for stopping cars.


So you only approve of State approved demos and are against any "non-legitimate" protest then?


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> Fucking hell ! Do you really believe that ! A blockaded car doesn't mean your "imprisoned" . You need to get some perspective ! Maybe people who park on the pavements and block them should be arrested as well then  !



I do believe that cars that are badly parked are towed away. Besides, pedistrians can always turn back. I've seen many environmentalists dance around cars and block the cars EVERY way. 

I'll listen to sound argument. I'll recycle my rubbish. If I have a car, I'll try and be as green as possible. Fucking piss me off and I'll do my level best to buy a 4x4.


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> they normally have a legitimate reason for stopping cars.


sa basbjgg  - sorry I've just choked on my oatie biscuit


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> my point is sorter is calling all the G8 marchers fucking wankers and making no distinction between the violent and non-violent protesters , something which you earlier claimed he wasn't doing




Aahhh....but maybe the title was only calling those who are MARCHING wankers....maybe he thinks the ones who are sauntering, jogging, strolling or skipping are ok. I think you might have to admit defeat on this.


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Aahhh....but maybe the title was only calling those who are MARCHING wankers....maybe he thinks the ones who are sauntering, jogging, strolling or skipping are ok. I think you might have to admit defeat on this.



cunning ! Next protest I go to I'm going to moonwalk so the police don't suspect me


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Are you seriously concerned about the owners of Burger King?
> 
> Don't worry, I reckon they'll cope.



Most Burger Kings are actually individually-owned franchise restaurants. So by smashing them up, you aren't really hitting Burger King, you are smashing up a fairly small individually-run business. 

Either way, vandalising some fast-food outlets isn't going to bring international capitalism to its knees any time soon, is it?

Giles..


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Fucking piss me off and I'll do my level best to buy a 4x4.



So you'd base your the level of environmental responsibility you take on the actions of a few protesters? You really do think these things through, don't you?


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you only approve of State approved demos and are against any "non-legitimate" protest then?



Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.

If you want to pursade motorists to be more green, amuse, entertain, make em laugh, win their friendship and influence them. Give em a leaflet, give em a T-shirt. But for goodness sakes, hold them up and ruin their day and they won't forgive or forget for a long time. 

If I couldn't run my car through protestors. I would sure as hell sit there with the handbrake on, causing as much pollution as possible.

Childish? Yep.

Petty? Yep.

Immature? Yep.

We ALL get like that when we are NEEDLESSLY put out by other people DELIBERATLY.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Either way, vandalising some fast-food outlets isn't going to bring international capitalism to its knees any time soon, is it?
> 
> Giles..




Did I say it was?


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i remember being on a reclaim the streets once where one driver put her foot down and went straight into the protesters.  fucking cunt.  if the fluffier wing hadn't got in the way she would have been dragged out of her car and given a slap.  how fucking dare you use your car as a weapon against peaceful protesters.
> 
> she was lucky she was surrounded by hippies who don't tend to go for street justive to calm down the spiky types who do.  she still had to fucing turn round, and got her car kicked in for her trouble.  personally if i was a copper i'd have done her for attempted murder.  but then if there were any coppers there they'd probably have let get away with it.
> 
> i'd ahve thought better of you than that, but there you go.



If someone is impeding my right to drive down a public street, I must say I would be tempted to just drive through them. It's their choice to get out of the way or not, isn't it?

Giles..


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Jul 6, 2005)

I remember derek posting advice here (many years ago) on how to smash paving slabs to throw at police and that you can remove a petrol cap from a car, stuff a rag down it and light. 

It was quite funny so I kept the thread...Hold on ill find it... rummage...

he suggests encouraging bypassera by handing them weapons, stoning TV crews and attacking banks.

Everyone on the thread then calls him a wanker. Personally when I see the police dressed as stormtroopers I think they deserve a bit of ultra-violence.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> I would sure as hell sit there with the handbrake on, causing as much pollution as possible.
> 
> Childish? Yep.
> 
> ...



Yeah, cos that's only gonna piss off the protesters. Not future generations and the entire fucking planet or anything. You really are a waste of fucking space.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.
> 
> If you want to pursade motorists to be more green, amuse, entertain, make em laugh, win their friendship and influence them. Give em a leaflet, give em a T-shirt. But for goodness sakes, hold them up and ruin their day and they won't forgive or forget for a long time.
> 
> ...



How often is your day ruined by protestors? Really, they must follow you around, planning every demo to coincide with your next journey, I can't believe that the occasional delay has driven you to such petty, bitchy, pointless bickering.


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> So you'd base your the level of environmental responsibility you take on the actions of a few protesters? You really do think these things through, don't you?



Hey. I never said it was the adult or responsible thing to do. But there are ways to win people hearts over and environmentalists tend to pick the most counter-productive methods known to man.

The answer is to educate people about the environment, not try to blackmail and shout them down.


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Fucking piss me off and I'll do my level best to buy a 4x4.




How old are you? 13?


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> If someone is impeding my right to drive down a public street, I must say I would be tempted to just drive through them. It's their choice to get out of the way or not, isn't it?
> 
> Giles..



and it's your choice to try and injure someone ! 

If it was a choise of being impeded going down a street or potentially killing someone I know which option I'd choose ( here's a clue it wouldn't involve running anyone over ! )


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2005)

bouncer_the_dog said:
			
		

> I remember derek posting advice here (many years ago) on how to smash paving slabs to throw at police and that you can remove a petrol cap from a car, stuff a rag down it and light.
> 
> It was quite funny so I kept the thread...Hold on ill find it... rummage...
> 
> ...


Are you for real?


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.



kind of makes 90% of protests/direct actions completely pointless then doesn't it. There are reasons why people are targetting certain institutions and people!


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> How often is your day ruined by protestors? Really, they must follow you around, planning every demo to coincide with your next journey, I can't believe that the occasional delay has driven you to such petty, bitchy, pointless bickering.



What are you on about?

Do you even bother to read my posts?

Green protests are mainly counter-productive.

Educating people is much better.

I try to live my life as eco-friendly as I can do, that would change if idiots decided to surround a my car (If I had one) in the name of protest.


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2005)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> and it's your choice to try and injure someone !
> 
> If it was a choise of being impeded going down a street or potentially killing someone I know which option I'd choose ( here's a clue it wouldn't involve running anyone over ! )



It would be like playing Carmageddon

Giles..


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.
> 
> .




I thought your view on demos was -

"If I had my own way, I wouldn't let you go to one, let alone leave one!"


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.


So you - on principle - would have been against many of the anti-racist/Suffragette/environmental protests that have taken place because someone, somewhere may have been briefly inconvenienced by a traffic queue?




			
				layabout said:
			
		

> If I couldn't run my car through protesters. I would sure as hell sit there with the handbrake on, causing as much pollution as possible.


Then you sir would be acting like a prize cunt. A disgrace to the human race.

 I don't suppose you even realise that many of the liberties you enjoy today have been brought about by protesters who may have - _God dammit_ - briefly inconvenienced some of their fellow citizens in their fight for justice?






			
				layabout said:
			
		

> Morally, I don't mind people protesting in ANY "un-official" circumstances, as long as it doesn't ruin someone elses day.


If your day is "ruined" by brief traffic jams, I suggest you give up driving.


----------



## layabout (Jul 6, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> kind of makes 90% of protests/direct actions completely pointless then doesn't it. There are reasons why people are targetting certain institutions and people!



Only 90% ?


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

i don't read newspapers, i read books

i don't watch much TV, only news and current affairs.

they fact someone has judged me by my fucking post count is laughable.

a) if it makes you feel better, most of my 'count' was deleted along with a lot of other people's some time ago.

b) i have better things to do than write on here. i enjoy reading this site, and dip in every now and again.

i'm very sorry mate for having a much inferior post count to you. please forgive me.


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> I try to live my life as eco-friendly as I can do, that would change if idiots decided to surround a my car (If I had one) in the name of protest.


So, you'd change your values because some protestors pissed you off? It's not them you'd be hurting you know


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> ....that would change if idiots decided to surround a my car (If I had one) in the name of protest.



Oh yeah, god forbid that any form of protest should ever inconvenience anyone


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

If you want to pursade motorists to be more green, amuse, entertain, make em laugh, win their friendship and influence them. Give em a leaflet, give em a T-shirt. But for goodness sakes, hold them up and ruin their day and they won't forgive or forget for a long time.

If I couldn't run my car through protestors. I would sure as hell sit there with the handbrake on, causing as much pollution as possible.

- You make it seem as though this is a major issue to you, to the extent where you've become so stressed about it that you'd consider mowing them down, I was just wondering how frequently you found yourself in the middle of protests, or having your day effected by protests, you certainly make it sound like it's the bain of your existance. Or perhaps you're just a generally stressed person, don't know you, can't say.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i don't read newspapers, i read books
> 
> i don't watch much TV, only news and current affairs.
> 
> ...




Where the fuck did anyone judge you on your post count???


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i don't read newspapers, i read books
> 
> i don't watch much TV, only news and current affairs.
> 
> ...



the post count comment was about why someone would know you believe everything you read in the papers when you have only posted a small amount so it would be impossible to tell exactly what level of free thinking you have ! You haven't been judged and if you have it's been done by someone supporting you


----------



## sorter (Jul 6, 2005)

beg your pardon, i'm juggling a keyboard, glass of vino, my dinner and chatting!


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> beg your pardon, i'm juggling a keyboard, glass of vino, my dinner and chatting!




I hate jugglers 



Hope your dinners nice


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> If someone is impeding my right to drive down a public street, I must say I would be tempted to just drive through them. It's their choice to get out of the way or not, isn't it?
> 
> Giles..



then it's also their choice as to smash your nasty might=right face in.

condemn people for violence fine, but don't advocate violence as well.  you can't ahve it both ways.  you can either force your way through life and suck the cock of the first stronger person who comes along and convince yourself that it's right, or you could accept that you're a fucking hypocrite bully who doesn't mind violence if it makes your life easier.  or you could set yourself a set of rules and guidelines for when violence, both direct and harm caused by neglect or say, international capitalism, is acceptable and when it isn't.  if you think a system that allows thousands to die every day needlessly is more acceptable then fair enough, but don't be such a shit as to whinge when a protest that causes very little harm gets in your way as people try and prevent that harm.

and don't think that the leaders of the countries who most profit from the system are willingly going to give it up because people ask nicely and promise to do what they're told.  this simply doesn't happen. if you can find me an example of it, then please do so, but you can't.  the rulers, be it monarchical, religious, political, or corporate simple have never handed over power and wealth without a fight.


----------



## fishfingerer (Jul 6, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't kill them, like smashing into them really fast,I would tell them first that I am coming through then if they didn't move  I would just run over them slowly, they would soon get out of the way. If they tried to damage my car I would get the car jack out and damage them. Sorry, I just don't take shit from no one.


If someone tried to run me over I'd drag them out and batter the fuck out of them, put them back inside their precious fucking car then set the whole lot on fucking fire. My uncle was knocked off his bicycle and killed by some motorist fuckwit. I don't take any shit from the scum ta.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> If I couldn't run my car through protestors. I would sure as hell sit there with the handbrake on, causing as much pollution as possible.



which quite frankly makes you as selfish or worse than those you complain about.

take some fucking responsibility for your own life and actions.


----------



## dormouse (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> ...I try to live my life as eco-friendly as I can do, that would change if idiots decided to surround a my car (If I had one) in the name of protest.


You're not one for looking at the bigger picture are you layabout?

You try to be eco friendly but if somebody inconveniences you for a few minutes you'll change your principles just to spite them?

And it's interesting to see how easy you would be to manipulate.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

"then it's also their choice as to smash your nasty might=right face in.

condemn people for violence fine, but don't advocate violence as well. you can't ahve it both ways. you can either force your way through life and suck the cock of the first stronger person who comes along and convince yourself that it's right, or you could accept that you're a fucking hypocrite bully who doesn't mind violence if it makes your life easier. or you could set yourself a set of rules and guidelines for when violence, both direct and harm caused by neglect or say, international capitalism, is acceptable and when it isn't. if you think a system that allows thousands to die every day needlessly is more acceptable then fair enough, but don't be such a shit as to whinge when a protest that causes very little harm gets in your way as people try and prevent that harm.

and don't think that the leaders of the countries who most profit from the system are willingly going to give it up because people ask nicely and promise to do what they're told. this simply doesn't happen. if you can find me an example of it, then please do so, but you can't. the rulers, be it monarchical, religious, political, or corporate simple have never handed over power and wealth without a fight."


Seconded.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> which quite frankly makes you as selfish or worse than those you complain about.
> 
> take some fucking responsibility for your own life and actions.



Was that meant for me? Because that was a quote from Layabout, I think, I don't even drive.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

ah, fuck this.

i was in a good mood today, and suddenly to find hordes of idiots come out the woodwork to let us know that anyone who doesn't do exactly as their told and ask really nicely to people who NEVER say yes actually deserve violence... well fuck it.

i'm not spoiling my happiness and peace of mind getting wound up bt the greedy, the selfish, and the hypocritical.

goodnight.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> Was that meant for me? Because that was a quote from Layabout, I think, I don't even drive.




sorry, i'm in a mood and it wasn't in quotes so i immediately assumed it was your opinion.  i keep layabout on ignore so i don't have to see toilet like that.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> Was that meant for me? Because that was a quote from Layabout, I think, I don't even drive.



Nah, i think it was meant for Layabout.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 6, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you - on principle - would have been against many of the anti-racist/Suffragette/environmental protests that have taken place because someone, somewhere may have been briefly inconvenienced by a traffic queue?
> 
> Then you sir would be acting like a prize cunt. A disgrace to the human race.
> 
> I don't suppose you even realise that many of the liberties you enjoy today have been brought about by protesters who may have - _God dammit_ - briefly inconvenienced some of their fellow citizens in their fight for justice?If your day is "ruined" by brief traffic jams, I suggest you give up driving.



The traffic disruption has been far from brief, and has also been considerable.

Some of my colleagues have had great difficulty in getting to and from work, work incidentally which entails helping the least priveleged in society.

Peaceful protest is fine, not a problem, wanton destruction of others property is not; it is not justified under any circumstances.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Peaceful protest is fine, not a problem, wanton destruction of others property is not; it is not justified under any circumstances.




Causing a traffic jam is hardly "wanton destruction of others property" is it?


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> The traffic disruption has been far from brief, and has also been considerable.
> 
> Some of my colleagues have had great difficulty in getting to and from work, work incidentally which entails helping the least priveleged in society.



Awwww, bless!!!  

Let's not worry about the least privileged in the world, eh?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 6, 2005)

President Bush has collided with a police officer whilst riding his bike at Gleneagles. The officer has been hospitalised with an injured foot.


----------



## Wookey (Jul 6, 2005)

Back in 1994 I was living in France and was seriously inconvenienced by the worker's marches that threatened a repeat of May 1968. One morning, I awoke in my apartment in the Arab district of Perpignan, to hear a tremendous commotion below. From my balcony, I saw the streets thronged with people, legions of flags waving, whistles and screams and chants echoing up the building. It was awesome.

We had to leave the country before the strikes hit the ports, so I only joined in for a couple of days, but it was fantastic just making up the numbers and being part of a collective of people who were saying Non to the authorities - who need saying Non to let's not forget, lest they do offensive things.

I don't agree with cars, nor having a business, so there's very little I own that could be hurt. I suppose a protestor could take away my peace and quiet, but then if I agreed with their stance I wouldn't mind.

If hunters had a noisy protest down my street that woke me up, I'm afraid I could get even more ugly than I already am. I'm all for protest, but I wonder how forgiving I'd be near a BNP march, etc.

I noticed yesterday that the early BBC reports of the trouble mentioned police heavy-handedness. By the evening news, more senior reporters had firmly put the blame at the feet of the protestors.

The fact that UK police authorities are notoriously litigious, and will mug a newspaper for 80 grand if it so much as mentioned police brutality, bribery, etc, has nothing to do with this media attitude to blame in protest situations, and you'd be a fool to presume so.


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> President Bush has collided with a police officer whilst riding his bike at Gleneagles. The officer has been hospitalised with an injured foot.



Bush has sustained grazes to his hands and arms


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> "then it's also their choice as to smash your nasty might=right face in.
> 
> condemn people for violence fine, but don't advocate violence as well. you can't ahve it both ways. you can either force your way through life and suck the cock of the first stronger person who comes along and convince yourself that it's right, or you could accept that you're a fucking hypocrite bully who doesn't mind violence if it makes your life easier. or you could set yourself a set of rules and guidelines for when violence, both direct and harm caused by neglect or say, international capitalism, is acceptable and when it isn't. if you think a system that allows thousands to die every day needlessly is more acceptable then fair enough, but don't be such a shit as to whinge when a protest that causes very little harm gets in your way as people try and prevent that harm.
> 
> ...




Wrong. 

Violent and destructive protest is never justified.

Violence itself is an integral part of human beings, it is something to be abhorred but is sometimes a necessity.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 6, 2005)

eh? you're contradicting yourself!


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Violent and destructive protest is never justified.
> 
> Violence itself is an integral part of human beings, it is something to be abhorred but is sometimes a necessity.





Surely that's a contradiction?


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

And I just want to point out that those were bluestreaks words - whilst i agree completely with them, I don't wanna appear to be taking credit


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Violent and destructive protest is never justified.
> 
> Violence itself is an integral part of human beings, it is something to be abhorred but is sometimes a necessity.




Violence is sometimes a necessity but not violent protest??????? Huh???


----------



## Wookey (Jul 6, 2005)

Have em sass.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Surely that's a contradiction?



Not necessarily, if violence is an integral, unavoidable aspect of human nature then it may be impossible to resist it and it may be the only way in which we can deal with problems at times, doesn't make it good, just makes it part of our nature, a really shitty part. Of course that doesn't justify it, we can think beyond our more base instincts, even if we can't always control them, but instinct and 'nature' can easily supercede concious thought. Humans are violent, even if we know we shouldn't be.

That said, I'm a pacifist, just trying to interpret the post here.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 6, 2005)

YouSir said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, if violence is an integral, unavoidable aspect of human nature then it may be impossible to resist it and it may be the only way in which we can deal with problems at times, doesn't make it good, just makes it part of our nature, a really shitty part. Of course that doesn't justify it, we can think beyond our more base instincts, even if we can't always control them, but instinct and 'nature' can easily supercede concious thought. Humans are violent, even if we know we shouldn't be.
> 
> That said, I'm a pacifist, just trying to interpret the post here.




No...you lost me


----------



## YouSir (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> No...you lost me



To be honest I think I've probably lost myself too, but hey, it made sense at the time, which is good enough for me.


----------



## MoKa (Jul 6, 2005)

I'd be interested to know if your Subject title "G8 marchers = fucking wankers" includes the almost 1/4 Million (including me) marchers who were in Edinburgh on Saturday. 

Because I'd also like to point out that there were only TWO arrests the entire day.  There was no voilence, no vandalism, and only minimal disruption to the city (on a day when the _majority_ of people don't have to try and get to work). 

Could I also point out that the Scottish schools closed for the summer holidays last week, so there will be no parents struggling to get their kids to school while these other protests are going on.  

It IS unfortunate that some people will have problems getting to work (especially in the caring/social responsibility sectors) but this is a small inconvenience compared to the thousands dying every day in other parts of the world, where people don't have the same freedom of expression that we do.


----------



## Loki (Jul 6, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Causing a traffic jam is hardly "wanton destruction of others property" is it?


Wasn't there very recently a huge "drive slow" protest by rabid motorists on the M4, inconveniencing thousands of people?


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Wasn't there very recently a huge "drive slow" protest by rabid motorists on the M4, inconveniencing thousands of people?



I seem to remember, not that long ago, the same sort of thing and the blockading of oil refineries as a protest against fuel duty by the haulage industry and farmers (who weren't even affected) with the tacit support of the oil companies.

I wonder how our resident guardians of public convenience viewed that?


----------



## Wess (Jul 6, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> No it doesn't.
> 
> *You just want to argue about stupid things * rather than condemn those involved on violence who do make the rest look bad.


   <shakes head in disbelief>


----------



## nosos (Jul 6, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Violent and destructive protest is never justified.
> 
> Violence itself is an integral part of human beings, it is something to be abhorred but is sometimes a necessity.


You're contradicting yourself, Sas: if it's sometimes a necessity then it is, by definition, sometimes justified.


----------



## nosos (Jul 6, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. walking around with an iron bar smashing up people's cars
> 2. rampaging through scotland destroying shop fronts
> ...


This might come as a shock but they're not their to make their case to reactionary pricks, they're there to try & disrupt the g8 meeting.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> This might come as a shock but they're not their to make their case to reactionary pricks, they're there to try & disrupt the g8 meeting.


Do you think they ever stood a chance of actually disrupting the meeting?


----------



## nosos (Jul 6, 2005)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Do you think they ever stood a chance of actually disrupting the meeting?


Nope not at all but I think it's crucial to point out _why_ the people being criticised are there when they are being criticised: the whole "it makes them look bad" argument misses the point so spectacularly...


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 6, 2005)

longdog said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, god forbid that any form of protest should ever inconvenience anyone



Does this apply even if the aims of the protest are not u75-correct? What if it was an NF march that was impeding the progress of your mung bean bio-diesel powered Trabant? Would the inconvenience still be acceptable?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> Nope not at all but I think it's crucial to point out _why_ the people being criticised are there when they are being criticised: the whole "it makes them look bad" argument misses the point so spectacularly...


Agreed, but I think it's important to accept that a certain number of people are there simply to have a ruck, and criticise them accordingly.  Their actions have a massive negetive effect in terms of PR on the vast majority of people there who are trying to make a point.


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> then it's also their choice as to smash your nasty might=right face in.
> 
> condemn people for violence fine, but don't advocate violence as well.  you can't ahve it both ways.  you can either force your way through life and suck the cock of the first stronger person who comes along and convince yourself that it's right, or you could accept that you're a fucking hypocrite bully who doesn't mind violence if it makes your life easier.  or you could set yourself a set of rules and guidelines for when violence, both direct and harm caused by neglect or say, international capitalism, is acceptable and when it isn't.  if you think a system that allows thousands to die every day needlessly is more acceptable then fair enough, but don't be such a shit as to whinge when a protest that causes very little harm gets in your way as people try and prevent that harm.
> 
> and don't think that the leaders of the countries who most profit from the system are willingly going to give it up because people ask nicely and promise to do what they're told.  this simply doesn't happen. if you can find me an example of it, then please do so, but you can't.  the rulers, be it monarchical, religious, political, or corporate simple have never handed over power and wealth without a fight.




I'm not even bothered about this particular incident, but the situation where I want to go somewhere and someone is deliberately trying to prevent me from doing so, and assuming that by placing themself in my way they will somehow make me give up, makes my temper flash to red mist very quickly. 

I can't change that, its just the way I am. I'm not trying to argue about these particular protestors one way or the other.

Giles..


----------



## longdog (Jul 6, 2005)

DownwardDog said:
			
		

> ...impeding the progress of your mung bean bio-diesel powered Trabant? Would the inconvenience still be acceptable?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 6, 2005)

Having just watched the Sky news and seen the state of the protestors' arses when they were mooning, I am not so sure I would run em over after all.
Wouldn't want to dirty my £150 tyres.
Nighty night!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2005)

*Let's remind ourselves....*




			
				bluestreak said:
			
		

> ...the only social change that has ever happened ever has been pushed forward by protest.


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Agreed, but I think it's important to accept that a certain number of people are there simply to have a ruck, and criticise them accordingly.  Their actions have a massive negetive effect in terms of PR on the vast majority of people there who are trying to make a point.


Fair but I think it's important to say what you think constitutes people 'simply wanting to have a ruck': did you see the pic of the bloke smashing the car window at 8am in the morning? He's obviously an anti-social prick & I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone (regardless of their position on political violence) who disagrees. I remember on the February 15th anti-war demo, running into a group of blokes who one of my mates knew & they were masked up & on the special brew at half nine in the fucking morning while telling us of the fucking rampage they were gonna go on.

These people are anti-social cunts: to my mind that fact is almost incidental to their politics. These are the kind of people I would say are simply there to have a ruck. However these people are a tiny minority & I worry that when you start to deal in moralistic (meant non-pejoratively) condemnations of political violence, you start to run the risk of extending this group beyond the people it actually applies to iyswim.


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I'm not even bothered about this particular incident, but the situation where I want to go somewhere and someone is deliberately trying to prevent me from doing so, and assuming that by placing themself in my way they will somehow make me give up, makes my temper flash to red mist very quickly.


Sounds like you have a bit of an issue with authority my lad!


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

DownwardDog said:
			
		

> Would the inconvenience still be acceptable?


No because fash cunts stopping me from doing what I want to do is unacceptable. What's your point?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 7, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> Fair but I think it's important to say what you think constitutes people 'simply wanting to have a ruck': did you see the pic of the bloke smashing the car window at 8am in the morning? He's obviously an anti-social prick & I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone (regardless of their position on political violence) who disagrees. I remember on the February 15th anti-war demo, running into a group of blokes who one of my mates knew & they were masked up & on the special brew at half nine in the fucking morning while telling us of the fucking rampage they were gonna go on.
> 
> These people are anti-social cunts: to my mind that fact is almost incidental to their politics. These are the kind of people I would say are simply there to have a ruck. However these people are a tiny minority & I worry that when you start to deal in moralistic (meant non-pejoratively) condemnations of political violence, you start to run the risk of extending this group beyond the people it actually applies to iyswim.


The trouble is that some protests/demos/direct actions make it easier for these people to go on the rampage. Even if the people organising a protest don't agree with this kind of behaviour themselves, surely they know from previous experience what kind of things to expect from various scenarios, if you promote things in certain ways, choose certain locations and tactics and go along/hang out with certain groups of people. It isn't really a moral defence to create a situation and then claim that you had nothing to do with the resulting outcomes (even if it a legal and rhetorical one).


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> The trouble is that some protests/demos/direct actions make it easier for these people to go on the rampage.


How so?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 7, 2005)

_...promote things in certain ways, choose certain locations and tactics and go along/hang out with certain groups of people..._


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Peaceful protest is fine, not a problem, wanton destruction of others property is not; it is not justified under any circumstances.


And where have I condoned the "wanton destruction of other's property"?

Nowhere, that's where.


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> _...promote things in certain ways, choose certain locations and tactics and go along/hang out with certain groups of people..._


Could you be more specific? If you're saying that organisers (and supporters) of protests bear a responsibility for the actions of those on the protest in specific circumstances, surely it makes sense to say what those specific circumstances are?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 7, 2005)

not really 

*is watching BBCFour*


----------



## sambaqueen (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. walking around with an iron bar smashing up people's cars
> 2. rampaging through scotland destroying shop fronts
> ...



See that training exercise by agent provocateurs. Shite
S*M*A*S*H the G Hate


----------



## mrskp (Jul 7, 2005)

Buddy Bradley said:
			
		

> Do taxpayers pay for insurance costs?  I thought that was the policy holders.



Me like a few others are both.  A carefully aimed shot might have done the job cheaper.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i remember being on a reclaim the streets once where one driver put her foot down and went straight into the protesters.  fucking cunt.  if the fluffier wing hadn't got in the way she would have been dragged out of her car and given a slap.  how fucking dare you use your car as a weapon against peaceful protesters.
> 
> she was lucky she was surrounded by hippies who don't tend to go for street justive to calm down the spiky types who do.  she still had to fucing turn round, and got her car kicked in for her trouble.  personally if i was a copper i'd have done her for attempted murder.  but then if there were any coppers there they'd probably have let get away with it.
> 
> i'd ahve thought better of you than that, but there you go.



You get mad at her  for breaking the law, but not the protesters who are breaking the law.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 7, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> And who the fuck are you to decide that your interest in using the road takes precedence over anyone else's?



If you check the statute books, you'll find that it's an offence to walk in the streets without the appropriate permits.


----------



## tendril (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> when have they ever listened to violent abusive ones??



Poll tax riots?
Peasant's revolt?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2005)

classic  in brighton anti war demo invade town hall spray graffitti and prance on balcony of town hall special brew can in hand   
 now lots of people loathe the local council but there links to decsion making regarding the war is pretty tenous. the violent nutter just gives the state an excuse to use all its new toys and a change to ignore the arguement. The public just see a bunch of yobs look at the views on the bbc website


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2005)

likesfish said:
			
		

> classic  in brighton anti war demo invade town hall spray graffitti and prance on balcony of town hall special brew can in hand
> now lots of people loathe the local council but there links to decsion making regarding the war is pretty tenous. the violent nutter just gives the state an excuse to use all its new toys and a change to ignore the arguement. The public just see a bunch of yobs look at the views on the bbc website


Have any of you ever asked yourself who the 'violent nutter' actually is? Because my guess is that some of them are not who you really think they are ie genuine 'violent nutter' or protestors.
I thnk they are planted by someone there for a reason.


----------



## Cate (Jul 7, 2005)

*School*




			
				Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?




It might foster a meaningful discussion about the reasons for the protests  - a change from being fed information in the school setting perhaps?

Nice to see I have joined a forum where people feel strongly about stuff...


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2005)

I have an idiot question that I didn't dare make a thread about. Whilst I figure out what exactly is going on out there, what would your typical marcher do with regard to the G8 if they were in power?

As I see it, one could just 'not have' a G8, but then surely you are throwing away both influence and national reputation as well as ignoring that Britain is a significant economic force.

Alternatively you could devote your power there to simple altruism, but I got the impression that to some extent that's what Blair _is_ trying to push, though whether I believe him is another question.

I don't quite get it to be honest, but I never fare well at this whole news deal


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2005)

Cate said:
			
		

> Nice to see I have joined a forum where people feel strongly about stuff...


Welcome, Cate!
We are all nuts in here you know.  Have fun.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 7, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> Who the fuck are 'protestors' to decide that a mother kid can't get her kid to school on time?



That has to be one of the most absurd, thick & darn right twatish things you've ever posted SS - are you trolling


----------



## jæd (Jul 7, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> Can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. sitting in an expensive luxury hotel enjoying a sumptuous banquet
> 2. being helicoptered in at great expense
> ...



Perhaps because this keeps them away from anti-capitalist nutters while they they have a nice chat about poverty in Africa and ways they can reduce it.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2005)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> That has to be one of the most absurd, thick & darn right twatish things you've ever posted SS - are you trolling


Am I trolling? No.

I was asking a simple question. 
I will try to word it differently:

Local people, trying to go get to where they want to go, are being prevented from doing so by a minority of idiots who have descended on their town for a protest. A protestor smashed up a car yesterday. The person who owns that car will now have it off the road until it gets fixed. How do they know who that car belongs to? It could belong to someone who relies on it to ferry a disabled relative around. 
I am not against protesting at all, but when some violent twat goes to  a place like this and goes on an orgy of destruction it's just not on is it?

Editor; I see you are always moaning about the crackheads in Brixton tube pestering  and hassling, but you seem to think it's ok for people to be obstructed from driving a car down the road all because some 'anarchist' decides that it's his moment of glory and he has a right to block the way.
Double standards or what?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 7, 2005)

That idiot smashing the car window  on the tv  deserves to have the old bill
take him away  just a yob using any excuse for some vandlism . demos are supposed to be inconviencing  thats the point .SS  unless your driving ambulance /fire engine  or delivering organs  being held up is just inconvient .Walk or  wait 
or are you one of these motorists who think you should be able to go as fast as you like  whenever you want ? 
             Do the state actually employ agent provcauters? from what little I've seen
plenty of idiots  only too happy to kick trouble off just for fun .


----------



## Yossarian (Jul 7, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> but the situation where I want to go somewhere and someone is deliberately trying to prevent me from doing so, and assuming that by placing themself in my way they will somehow make me give up, makes my temper flash to red mist very quickly.



You've hit the nail on the head there. These marchers want to go to Gleneagles, the pigs are preventing them from doing so and placing themselves in the way, so it's no surprise some tempers are flaring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> can someone explain how:
> 
> 1. walking around with an iron bar smashing up people's cars


could you provide evidence for "car*s]/b]"? i've only seen (on telly) one car being smashed up. and i wasn't there, but i expect there was a good reason for the action people took. i'd rather know a little more first before i condemn it out of hand.



2. rampaging through scotland destroying shop fronts

Click to expand...

depends on the shop - multinationals are fair game.



3. stoning and attacking police officers

Click to expand...

who needs an excuse for a scrap with the old bill?




has ANYTHING to do with G8, or even influence it's outcome and agenda.

most of the people up there are fucking scum who have nothing better to do in their lives than cause trouble and cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in policing and insurance costs. money better spent towards the people they are campaigning for surely?

I understand peaceful protest, and think it should be done, but what message do the people up there think they are putting across??

grrr........

Click to expand...

the actions you deplore were - as i understand it - partly in response to the closure of stirling railway station and thus in part born out of frustration. as such, they formed part of a protest against the abitrary policing which has been such a feature of the past few days here in scotland. why don't you think about finding out more before posting such an ill-informed and prejudiced thread?*


----------



## Sorry. (Jul 7, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> you seem to think it's ok for people to be obstructed from driving a car down the road all because some 'anarchist' decides that it's his moment of glory and he has a right to block the way.


You objecting to all political roadblocks or just this particular one?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 7, 2005)

Depends if i agree with the cause or not . I'm sure if the bnp were doing it you would be calling for the police to shoot them and screaming at ss to go faster as he ploughs into them


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 7, 2005)

nosos said:
			
		

> No because fash cunts stopping me from doing what I want to do is unacceptable. What's your point?



My point is that anarchists, fucking clowns, students etc. stopping me from doing what I want is equally unacceptable to me. Your test for deciding whether a protest that disrupts other peoples' lives is acceptable or not seems to be solely whether you happen to personally agree with the protestors' aims.  This seems to a very limited way of looking at the issue.


----------



## Macabre (Jul 7, 2005)

*Just back from Gleneagles...*

..and the destruction of BK and other buisnesses (my heart bleeds) came from a handful of black blockers.  The vast majority of people wanted everything to be peaceful because we knew shit like this would happen were the media and the ingnorant (people on this thread) would take that actions of less than 1% of the people there at apply it to the rest of us.  

The roads that where blocked were hardly vital for the transport for the locals, only for people trying to get to Gleneagles hotel.  Locals who know the road and were set on going into the surrounding area could easily go around, afaik.

The atmosphere was great, very fluffy, but the Met police were absolute dicks, very heavy handed and nabbing people for rediculous reasons.  My mate was detained and is being charged for carrying an offensive weopon - a drum stick  Loads of people came back badly hurt from rough handly at peaceful, sit down blockages.  They prevent our right to demonstrate many times by blockading the campsite and preventing people leaving the train stations.

Tip - bin bags over a sleeping blanket do not keep you dry camping in the scotish hills, i was fucking soaked through doing interference runs through the hills up to GE. *goes to get hot shower*


----------



## parallelepipete (Jul 7, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> If someone tried to deliberately block my car from driving down a road I'd run them over.


Are you being funny, or are you and pxmd in league?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2005)

I wonder if all of the 'antis' on this thread - layabout, Giles, Sass - have considered that a lot of the freedoms people now enjoy have come about through protest - and not always the nice, peaceful, liberal protests they're prepared to tolerate?

Would they condemn, say, the sufragettes, who made a point of smashing windows and disrupting events?  Does the fact they did that mean that women shouldn't have the vote?

How about the fuel protests?  Sass, you were having a rant about protesters causing inconvenience.  Did you go and deliver the same lecture to the peopel blockading the oil refineries?

Jesus.


----------



## nosos (Jul 7, 2005)

DownwardDog said:
			
		

> My point is that anarchists, fucking clowns, students etc. stopping me from doing what I want is equally unacceptable to me. Your test for deciding whether a protest that disrupts other peoples' lives is acceptable or not seems to be solely whether you happen to personally agree with the protestors' aims.  This seems to a very limited way of looking at the issue.


How the fuck else would I look at it? If I'm evaluating someone's actions, I look at whether _I think_ they are justified in those actions: if I think they are then I support them, if I don't then I, um, don't. It's not fucking rocket science.


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

pickman's model, i hope to god your a very young person.

a young stupid person would come out with the comments you made, if your not young, then you really should have a look at yourself pal.

smashing up multi-national shops is fair game? someone's workplace? somewhere that has insurance, insurance that will rise, costs eventually borne by you and I? your on a wind-up surely. damaging property, no matter who it belongs to is not acceptable behaviour. sorry, but it's not. 

attacking police officers is acceptable? how? does it make you feel big telling everyone here on this site how you'd like to beat up a copper. coppers deserve it don't they. you hate violence, but you love it as well? bit of a confusing picture that one.

please tell me your young and foolish, and one day you'll grow up to be an adult with a brain.


----------



## longdog (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> ..one day you'll grow up to be an adult with a brain.



When are you planning on doing the same?


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

what's childish about hating violence and wanton destruction?

give me a reasonable answer and i'll agree to grow up. promise.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 7, 2005)

Its only a very small % of the protestors who would even think of smashing up anyones anything or agreeing with those who do so get your head from up your own arse for a second and think if someone is making a protest and you cant make your way down a road becuase they are marching, tough shit, take the scenic route and thank your lucky stars we are allowed to protest. In some countries they'd ALL be shot or imprisoned for protesting.


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

i haven't got my head up my arse, i just get frustrated with the hypocrasy on this website sometimes.

violence against coppers is ok, violence against iraqis/afghans etc. isn't
destruction of BK,Mcdonalds and scot's residents cars is fine, destruction of people's home's, cars and businesses by mugabe/sharon is not.
protests against the G8 ok, protests in the US against abortion is not.

etc. etc. etc. the above examples only and not exclusive......

sometimes some posters should really check themselves and have a bit of a reality check.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i haven't got my head up my arse, i just get frustrated with the hypocrasy on this website sometimes.
> 
> violence against coppers is ok, violence against iraqis/afghans etc. isn't
> destruction of BK,Mcdonalds and scot's residents cars is fine, destruction of people's home's, cars and businesses by mugabe/sharon is not.
> ...




Errr...that's because some things are ok and some things aren't. It's really that simple.


----------



## longdog (Jul 7, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Errr...that's because some things are ok and some things aren't. It's really that simple.



Don't confuse the poor dear, you'll only end up having to explain that some people have what are known as 'opinions' on things.


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

mmm. is the violence ok in london. would i be justified saying it's ok, because that's my opinion?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i haven't got my head up my arse, i just get frustrated with the hypocrasy on this website sometimes.
> 
> violence against coppers is ok, violence against iraqis/afghans etc. isn't
> destruction of BK,Mcdonalds and scot's residents cars is fine, destruction of people's home's, cars and businesses by mugabe/sharon is not.
> ...



Wonderful sweeping generalisations youve made there, as you made in your thread title and every post youve followed it with.
You DO need to drag your head out from up your arse. I know several people, including my own parents who went to edinburgh to are their feelings known, they arent violent, dont condone it and arent on any form of benefits ( in fact they regularly pay enough tax to keep a family for a week  )

So there you go, so far youve said that


> G8 marchers = fucking wankers





> most of the people up there are fucking scum who have nothing better to do in their lives than cause trouble and cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in policing and insurance costs. money better spent towards the people they are campaigning for surely?



Nice, most?? ok go on, get the stats, how many protestors, how many arrests? 



> the one's who aren't scum are the people there for the correct reasons.


  and which ones would they be exactly? do you think they all have different reasons for going? Nice weekend jolly to edinburgh to march anyone? its sooo fashnaaable you know  



> why don't the peaceful people tell the dick heads to fuck off then?


 Probably becuase they'd prefer to lead by example but they dont make such good headlines



> i don't read newspapers, i read books


 hmmm obvious where yuo arent getting your info from then, or your opinions  


It takes all sorts to make a world, all sorts of people from all over the world post on here,you might not agree with their opinions but dont just make sweeping generalisations  and call everyone hypocritical or you will be told to pull your head out from your rectum. As it is youve posted your opinions as fact and look like a bit of a div


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> mmm. is the violence ok in london. would i be justified saying it's ok, because that's my opinion?


----------



## longdog (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> mmm. is the violence ok in london. would i be justified saying it's ok, because that's my opinion?



Is it your opinion?


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

mmmm.......

well we'll agree to disagree then shall we.

i'll carry on living my life in peace, and you carry on yours full of angst.

i can't apologise for hating violence and destruction (why i started the thread), i think it gets the world nowhere. you don't know me, in the same way i don't know you, and i would like to think most of you are all nice people, in fact i know some of you are, but to not condemn violence and wanton destruction at these large gatherings at summits/world bank etc. means you approve of it..................which i think is sad. sorry.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> mmm. is the violence ok in london. would i be justified saying it's ok, because that's my opinion?



Just run that by me again.

Are you seriously saying that you see no difference between protest and terrorism?

You mean to say that an open - if sometimes a bit rough - demonstration where the odd idiot does something stupid is the same as sticking bombs in tube trains to kill as many _uninvolved_ people as possible?

Tell me you're taking the piss...


----------



## longdog (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> sorry.



Apology accepted.

Now fuck off.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2005)

longdog said:
			
		

> Apology accepted.
> 
> Now fuck off.


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

i was responding to the notion of people having opinions. would someone be ok in saying the violence in london was ok (because it was their opinion), in the same way someone approved of the violence against, say, huntingdon life sciences employees (because it was their opinion). ??

why should one opinion be ok and the other not??


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

For fucks sake - which _particular incidents_ at the G8 protests do you have a problem with?


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> why should one opinion be ok and the other not??



And for Christs sake, if you can't see that some opinions are acceptable and others aren't, then I'm seriously worried about you.

I'll break it down - 

Hitler's opinions on how to treat Jews - *bad*

Alan Titchmarsh's opinions on wild flower gardens - *good*


----------



## roundtheworld (Jul 7, 2005)

They all have to go home now. How can they attack Blair and this country after all that has taken place today. I think a policy of shoot on sight should now be adopted.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

roundtheworld said:
			
		

> They all have to go home now. How can they attack Blair and this country after all that has taken place today. I think a policy of shoot on sight should now be adopted.



And you can shut the fuck up as well.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2005)

...the fuck are _you_ on about?


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

look, it's fairly simple. for the last time, how can:

destroying people's cars and shops
attacking police officers

on whatever scale, large or small, advance any cause they might be up there to champion? no-one has answered this in 8 pages of responses.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> ...the fuck are _you_ on about?



I'll take a guess that that wasn't aimed at me?!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i haven't got my head up my arse, i just get frustrated with the hypocrasy on this website sometimes.
> 
> violence against coppers is ok, violence against iraqis/afghans etc. isn't
> destruction of BK,Mcdonalds and scot's residents cars is fine, destruction of people's home's, cars and businesses by mugabe/sharon is not.
> ...




Good post and informative  but is it known what proportion of the Police there were Metropolitan?? 

Respect to nosos and scumbalina's posts in this thread especially.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> look, it's fairly simple. for the last time, how can:
> 
> destroying people's cars and shops
> attacking police officers
> ...




Again I'll ask you to tell us the _specific incidents_ you're talking about


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2005)

I think sorter's gone .....


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

please scumbalina read my last post, jesus. destroying property, attacking police officers. i can't write it any more!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> look, it's fairly simple. for the last time, how can:
> 
> destroying people's cars and shops
> attacking police officers
> ...



And once again, perhaps you might address the questions of whether you condemn all political violence or just the sort you don't agree with, and whether you see no difference between protest and terrorism?



> They all have to go home now. How can they attack Blair and this country after all that has taken place today. I think a policy of shoot on sight should now be adopted.



Fuck me there are some stupid people about, aren't there?


----------



## longdog (Jul 7, 2005)

roundtheworld said:
			
		

> They all have to go home now. How can they attack Blair and this country after all that has taken place today. I think a policy of shoot on sight should now be adopted.




What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 7, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> I'll take a guess that that wasn't aimed at me?!!


Good guess!


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

i am now william! work in the morning, little girl to get ready etc..

night all, sweet dreams, let's hope tomorrow is better that today.......


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> please scumbalina read my last post, jesus. destroying property, attacking police officers. i can't write it any more!



Yes you can - from who did you hear this happened? Where and when did it happen? Provide a source that people can look at?


----------



## sorter (Jul 7, 2005)

i hate political violence, domestic violence, war, terrorism, fighting on the street, boxing, whatever.


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 7, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Alan Titchmarsh's opinions on wild flower gardens - *good*



FUCK RIGHT OFF! The bloke's an utter cunt!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Hitler's opinions on how to treat Jews - *bad*
> 
> Alan Titchmarsh's opinions on wild flower gardens - *good*



hypocrite


----------



## Groucho (Jul 7, 2005)

As a G8 protester who has just returned you can take it from me that 

1. the media accounts of violence are exagerated 

2. the riot police were out to cause confrontation. 

The policies of the G8 are impoverishing much of the World, ensuring that no real action is taken to save the planet from climate change and are warmongers who have made the whole world a more dangerous place. It is right and just to oppose them and expose them.

I will provide an account of the supposed 'riot' on Monday in Edinburgh's 'financial district' and of yesterday's march on the G8 hotel in Gleneagles. 

Right now, having walked through London, I am not really in the mood for rigorous debate, and certainly not for slanging matches.


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i hate political violence, domestic violence, war, terrorism, fighting on the street, boxing, whatever.


 That's nice.

Can you reply to my question please?



And Titchmarsh haters....I was making a point....sorry


----------



## _pH_ (Jul 7, 2005)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> And Titchmarsh haters....I was making a point....sorry



Apology grudgingly accepted. Just don't do it again OK?


----------



## scumbalina (Jul 7, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> Apology grudgingly accepted. Just don't do it again OK?




OK. I only have hanging baskets...what the fuck do I know.  


Hey Sorter - answer my questions or I'll derail your thread into a gardening experts debate!


----------



## nosos (Jul 8, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> i was responding to the notion of people having opinions. would someone be ok in saying the violence in london was ok (because it was their opinion), in the same way someone approved of the violence against, say, huntingdon life sciences employees (because it was their opinion). ??


Jesus christ on a fucking bike: *there's more to the morality of an action than the consequence of the action*. Is that so fucking hard to grasp? I think going up to someone on the street & kicking the shit out of them is morally different to kicking the shit out of someone who has a gun to your family & is threatening to kill them. By your logic, those two actions are morally equal because they have the same result (i.e. violence) but to anyone with a braincell - or for that matter, anyone who's thought through the subject of ethics at all - they're clearly not.


----------



## layabout (Jul 8, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So anything creating a traffic jam should also be charged similarly too? Broken down cars, injured pedestrians etc?
> 
> And how can you be "imprisoned" when there are usually between 2 and 5 doors available on every vehicle?



Do people deliberatly have their cars break down on them or injure themselves?


----------



## nosos (Jul 8, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> not really
> 
> *is watching BBCFour*


Fair


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2005)

sorter said:
			
		

> look, it's fairly simple. for the last time, how can:
> 
> destroying people's cars and shops
> attacking police officers
> ...


Yes they have. People have given as examples; Suffragettes, Poll Tax, Peasants revolt and more.


----------



## nosos (Jul 8, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes they have. People have given as examples; Suffragettes, Poll Tax, Peasants revolt and more.


Violence is bad


----------



## Fuzzy (Jul 8, 2005)

i guess at least the events in london yesterday sort of meant that there wouldnt be any trouble up north. thank fully. pointless violence up there would have won absolutely no favours at all in light of what was happening in london.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 8, 2005)

I got back from the Sterling camp early thismorning, I spent Wednesday mostly on and around the A9, I didn't see any violence except by the police. I know the BK and Pizza hut by camp were trashed, I saw them after it had happened, apprentyl by a group who left the camp early on the morning of wednesday, not saying it didn't happen just I didn't see it.

As for locals by Gleneagles, they were supportive, I saw no attacks against them and in the afternoon on Wednesday when I found myself there with a group of around 20-30 people a local hotle owner gave us coffee and wouldn't take money for it, and gave a jumper (left unclaimed by a pervious guest) to one person who didn't have dry clothes. They were certainly not the community under siege by violent thugs that seem to have been portrayed (I've had little access to radio/tv etc for days).


----------

