# Protest against army recruitment centre



## osterberg (May 26, 2006)

Here's some actual political activity taking place in sleepy Cardiff.

SHUT IT DOWN! 
Protest new army recruitment centre in Cardiff 
Saturday 3 June at 1.30 
Wood Street (Opposite Bus station) 

At a time when Britain is engaged in imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - Is it really appropriate to have an army recruitment building in the town centre? 

School Students against the War, supported by Cardiff Stop the War Coalition have called for a mass demonstration to signal our opposition to anyone from Cardiff going to Iraq to kill and be killed in a war for oil. 

Everyone welcome - Bring placards, banners, drums, slogans etc. 
For more information contact: ssaw.cardiff@gmail.com


----------



## Ben Bore (May 26, 2006)

Thanks for that, will try and attend.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 26, 2006)

Just been emailed this, I should note that the demo is being supported and attended by non-school students:

*School Students Against War
12pm Friday 28th May 2005
Press release: Immediate*

SCHOOL STUDENTS SAY "SHUT IT DOWN!" 

School Students Against War (SSAW) will be joining anti-war protesters from across South Wales in an anti-military recruitment protest in Cardiff next Saturday, June 3rd

SSAW are collaborating with the Stop the War Coalition to organize a demonstration outside Cardiff's newly opened army recruitment office. 

They say that army careers offices', such as the one recently established in Cardiff, are sending young people to their deaths in illegal wars in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and should be closed down immediately.

The school students, many of whom walked out in protest against the Iraq war in 2003 and again in protest to the G8 summit last summer, said that the Iraq war is an illegal, dangerous one in which hundreds of thousands have been killed for no good reason 

Steve Rolf, 16, a pupil at Bro Morgannwg School in the Vale of Glamorgan and member of School Students Against War (SSAW), asked: "How can Tony Blair say that Iraq is at a turning point and on the road to recovery, when well over 800 innocent people were killed there just this month?".

The group is also co-ordinating a demonstration at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester next September, to protest against the government and its foreign policies with regards to the Middle East in particular.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

good god - what ever happened to freedom of choice people? - no one is forced to join the army - its not like national service is it?! - i dont agree with the illegal wars either before anyone starts but some people actually want to join the army. do you have th right to deny them that?!


----------



## niclas (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> good god - what ever happened to freedom of choice people? - no one is forced to join the army - its not like national service is it?! - i dont agree with the illegal wars either before anyone starts but some people actually want to join the army. do you have th right to deny them that?!



And it's freedom of choice that 14-5 yr old kids were bussed in by their schools to an army recruitment fair in Chirk, Wrexham, is it? A similar thing happened in Margam Park too. 

And it's freedom of choice that army recruitment officers have stepped up their visits to schools in poor areas of Glasgow (revealed under FOI Act) ten fold since the Iraq war due to falling recruitment levels because of the v real danger of new recruits getting:

(1) bullied to death in Deepcut
(2) shot or blown up in Iraq
(3) jailed for life for deserting/conscientiously objecting

The less naive amongst us realise there's a correlation between areas of high poverty and high army recruitment. It's called economic conscription.

Freedom of choice to join the army? Bollox


----------



## zog (May 30, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> And it's freedom of choice that 14-5 yr old kids were bussed in by their schools to an army recruitment fair in Chirk, Wrexham, is it? A similar thing happened in Margam Park too.
> 
> And it's freedom of choice that army recruitment officers have stepped up their visits to schools in poor areas of Glasgow (revealed under FOI Act) ten fold since the Iraq war due to falling recruitment levels because of the v real danger of new recruits getting:
> 
> ...



Well said. It's just not cricket you know.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> And it's freedom of choice that 14-5 yr old kids were bussed in by their schools to an army recruitment fair in Chirk, Wrexham, is it? A similar thing happened in Margam Park too.
> 
> And it's freedom of choice that army recruitment officers have stepped up their visits to schools in poor areas of Glasgow (revealed under FOI Act) ten fold since the Iraq war due to falling recruitment levels because of the v real danger of new recruits getting:
> 
> ...



so you are saying a life on the dole is better then are you? - maybe the poeple in deprived areas see it as an attractive option - travel the world - earn real money.  I am a total hypocrite to say this i know - but you fighting a corner for them is also hugely hypocritical - whose to say that you are not taking away an opportunity that some one may actually truly relish and excel at.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

zog said:
			
		

> Well said. It's just not cricket you know.


very funny - how long did it take you to come up with that?


----------



## osterberg (May 30, 2006)

Well I thought niclas hit you for six there, Wateryloo


----------



## zog (May 30, 2006)

hahahah

right in the googlies n all.

You've been served


----------



## llantwit (May 30, 2006)

Sorry, WW - you just got sent back to the pavillion there mate. You can't talk about freedom of choice in a vacuum with army recruitment.
It is, and always has been a fucking scandal, for the reasons already mentioned.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 30, 2006)

Are they actually conscripted into the army? Do they have a choice to join?

No and yes. Simply because the army target less affluent areas for recruitment, bus teenagers in etc does not mean they are not given a choice of joining or not.

Maybe if they'd _chosen_ to work harder in school instead of fucking about so stood a chance of being in a position that was slightly better than 'army or dole' they'd be better off.

And of the three reasons given by Niclas, only one (being blown up or shot at) really holds any water on recruitment at the moment, since armies historically have always found it harder to recruit volounteers during times of war...

Besides, how about going to college to study something? Or if they're such conscientious objectors why bother in the first place? Cos of course the families don't put any pressure on these kids do they?

'Economic conscription'...in a country like the US I completely agree since there is no choice at the bottom, but in the UK...nah...work harder at school, go to college...plenty of different options at 16.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

And of the three reasons posted so eloquently by Nicolas (not) - the people joining know about these matters before joining the army.  People know the facts, or at least should for every job they are joining.  How would you feel if someone protested against the job you were doing – and which you enjoyed doing, because they felt morally superior to you?! – this is just a blatant case of nannying and holier than thou attitude.  And I thought that everyone was morally abhorred when America tries to impose its views on other nations.  Can you point out the difference here please?  This really does seem like protest for protest sake!


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

zog said:
			
		

> hahahah
> You've been served




Is that a cricket quote? must try harder next time zog and not get your sports confused. - or were you just stumped for the right word ?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

I heard Andy McNabb speaking on Radio Wales yesterday, if it's on listen again ( it was about 12 noon ), it'd be listening to get a soldiers perspective.

We had an Army visit in school about careers ( the usual array of punkers protested and I was shut up for asking questions ), but despite the polish they put on it I don't think the kids are so naiive to not know the risks.

Whether the choices are there is another matter? Yes they will target areas of high employement to get a better batting average.

But high unemployment will mean people taking riskier jobs overall ( asbestos clearing e.g. for cash in hand ). The risks are known, it's the pay off that's greater.

I recently had a bloke who'd come back from Iraq, totally fucked off ( not with the war per se, but the way their hands were tied in dealing with things ).

He was thinking about going back privately as a 'security consultant' to central Baghdad, he knew that it was incredibly dangerous but the pay was £11,000 per month =, and as he said if he could survive for a year he could buy a house. 

So the choice is there, but the alternative choices for employment in poorer areas are more limited.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

*We've had this before but bit of interesting local history*

*Welsh Army for the Workers Republic [WAWR]*

As stated earlier, this groups initials form WAWR which is the welsh word for dawn. It announced its existence in the early 1980's and unlike the previous three groups targeted on political and military targets.

The bomb attacks for which this group claimed responsibility included Army Recruiting Offices, local Conservative Offices and Government Offices. A group of its members were arrested in 1983 and charged with explosives and conspiracy offences.

In a trial at Cardiff Crown Court the case collapsed and only one defendant was convicted. This result notwithstanding, following this trial no more claims of responsibility have been made on behalf of this group. It seems to have ceased operations


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> I heard Andy McNabb speaking on Radio Wales yesterday, if it's on listen again ( it was about 12 noon ), it'd be listening to get a soldiers perspective.
> 
> We had an Army visit in school about careers ( the usual array of punkers protested and I was shut up for asking questions ), but despite the polish they put on it I don't think the kids are so naiive to not know the risks.
> 
> ...


exactly - its all about choice.   Who are we to deny people a choice, and by the same measure a possible future? - do the protesters have any other meaningful employment for those who wish to join the army that they are seeking to stop doing so? This really has to be one of the worst thought out ideas for protesting that has been devised.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

It'd be worth watching Andrew Gilligan's 'Battle Fatigue' for another perspective on this. Injured squaddies getting no physio, left to fend for themselves with NHS waiting lists. No retraining to get them back on their feet in civvy street, no accomodation provided for people with nowhere to live etc etc. W/c lads coming back with severe mental health issues and being left to rot, 'cos they've served their purpose.

What about the guy who was downgraded and on serious AD's over here, being redeployed with no provision made for him to continue on the meds over there - brick-wall detox on active service  

Do the kids know this? Do you seriously reckon the army recruiters will tell them?


----------



## zog (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> Is that a cricket quote? must try harder next time zog and not get your sports confused. - or were you just stumped for the right word ?




It's a non-sport related quote.  I don't understand much in the way of sporting terms, but even I know cricketers dont serve - they throw, and hit the balls back with their racquets.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

zog said:
			
		

> It's a non-sport related quote.  I don't understand much in the way of sporting terms, but even I know cricketers dont serve - they throw, and hit the balls back with their racquets.


you appear to not know much about much.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

The army nobbling anyone who'd been injured and not got proper treatment by threatening their medical care in the future if they spoke to the media was a nice touch too. Is that mentioned at the careers fair?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 30, 2006)

> Do the kids know this? Do you seriously reckon the army recruiters will tell them?



If not, who's responsibility is it to find out? If one takes Niclas' point about Deepcut for example, then I'd say it'd be likely that 'the kids' know about PTSD and associated post-service issues?

Whose responsibility? For my money the way the army currently treats ex-servicemen is appalling (altho I'm more inclined to believe that this is driven more by the MoD trying to save money then the armed forces themselves), but if you were signing the next 5-10 years of your life away with the foreknowledge that the job you were doing would potentially be life threatening, wouldn't you do some background checking? Or if you were a parent wouldn't you do it on behalf of your kid?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> exactly - its all about choice.   Who are we to deny people a choice, and by the same measure a possible future? - do the protesters have any other meaningful employment for those who wish to join the army that they are seeking to stop doing so? This really has to be one of the worst thought out ideas for protesting that has been devised.



The crux of the choice here ( as in Fruitloops post below that I can't link to ) is two fold AFAICS;

* Informed choice i.e. do these kids know what awaits them ,the risks of battle, following orders you don't agree with, and aftercare?

* and the lack of choice of alternatives that may be greater in other areas of the country/social classes. ( which in a way diminshes your choice of career ).

I said my piece on this already so I'm shutting my cakehole


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2006)

do u vote tory ww?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

Apart from..Fruitloops earlier link on another thread is worth reading. 
Sort of like a contract/prospectus for joining the army.


----------



## WouldBe (May 30, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> * Informed choice i.e. do these kids know what awaits them ,*the risks of battle*, following orders you don't agree with, and aftercare?



This point has been raised by several people. Just how thick do you think kids are?

*Join the Army and play with guns.
*Possibly go to war and engage an other Army armed with guns.

Then what? Settle the differences with a game of swingball, or beach volleyball?


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> do u vote tory ww?


do you always post unconstructive abusive nonsense?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

Kyser,

I honestly don't get where you're coming from with the caveat emptor bollocks. If the army has the right to try and sweep this stuff under the carpet and squash any negative publicity that appears in the media (they complained about the Andrew Gilligan thing within 10 minutes of it starting), then the rest of us have the right to turn up and shout from the fucking rooftops what a disgrace it is.

A quarter of all homeless people are ex-forces according to shelter - how does that reflect on British society? It's just totally fucking indefensible.


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> do you always post unconstructive abusive nonsense?



no that's you. (show me one constructive post on these boards by yourself)

i just asked a question   you obviously don't have to answer it, but it would explain a few things if you could bring yourself to...


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

A blushing Tory, how quaint.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> This point has been raised by several people. Just how thick do you think kids are?
> 
> *Join the Army and play with guns.
> *Possibly go to war and engage an other Army armed with guns.
> ...


i know - the level of stupidity that is being levelled at those wishing to join the army by the so called protesters on here is staggering! - people make choices every day.  I dare say that anyone joining the army has a fair understanding of the possibilities that await them upon signing up. We all know and make an informed decision not to join based on our views and beliefs.  But taking away peoples freedom to join should they so wish is ridiculous.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> no that's you. (show me one constructive post on these boards by yourself)
> 
> i just asked a question   you obviously don't have to answer it, but it would explain a few things if you could bring yourself to...


no i dont actually for the record.  Are you that naive that because i dont agree with protesting about every small insignificant matter that i must be a tory? - in fact come to think of it are you a Tory Voter? - you seem to have the NIMBY attitude so prevalant amongst the tory voting Stronghold.  I am sure they are proud to have you in their ranks.


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2006)

who has said anywhwere that they want to stop people joining the army?  
i thought it was about the dodgy recruitment tactics and also about the badly managed war surrently killing our soldiers.

nice echo news stand thing today  could be usefull for next week


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

The kids at my 6th-form that joined up probably thought that PTSD was some kind of games console. Some of them even had ex-forces parents, but I don't know whether even they were aware that it just ain't the same ballgame any more.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> This point has been raised by several people. Just how thick do you think kids are?
> 
> *Join the Army and play with guns.
> *Possibly go to war and engage an other Army armed with guns.
> ...



Woah Would Be, that is my point. I don't think these kids are thick...I was pointing out the arguements on choices that have been put forward.

On the other post I was uppity about the fact that people felt kids couldn't make the right choices ( despite some of us posters joining anti-war groups at their age ), and especially pissed off ( though I kept schtuum for peace sake ) that they implied that it was working class kids especially that couldn't be trusted to make right choices.

Over and above that, as I said earlier Soldiers used to be the enemy doing the governments will, and now they are being seen by some as a tool for the Stop the War Coalition.. so I'm not convinced their support of dissenters is not for their own political ends either.

In short I don't know what the fuck I'm saying


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> no i dont actually for the record.  Are you that naive that because i dont agree with protesting about every small insignificant matter that i must be a tory? - in fact come to think of it are you a Tory Voter? - you seem to have the NIMBY attitude so prevalant amongst the tory voting Stronghold.  I am sure they are proud to have you in their ranks.



riiiiigh, another constructive 'non-attacking' post from ww 

why are you bothered? is it your mission to stop people protesting and bow down to the state?  
just WHY?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 30, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Kyser,
> 
> I honestly don't get where you're coming from with the caveat emptor bollocks. If the army has the right to try and sweep this stuff under the carpet and squash any negative publicity that appears in the media (they complained about the Andrew Gilligan thing within 10 minutes of it starting), then the rest of us have the right to turn up and shout from the fucking rooftops what a disgrace it is.
> 
> A quarter of all homeless people are ex-forces according to shelter - how does that reflect on British society? It's just totally fucking indefensible.



Hey I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not someone wants to protest outside an army recruitment centre, I was more annoyed with the comments about freedom of choice about army recruitment.

I don't think the army has any right to sweep anything under the carpet, and as there are at least 3 examples of 'Why You'd Be a Twat To Join Up' on this thread, all culled from publicly available sources, I don't think that caveat emptor is bollocks either. If information is publicly available (which it is) it's up to people to make an informed decision - whether they can be arsed to be bothered to do so is another matter, but then that's also the problem with getting rid of capitalism - all the information, books and even activist groups are there but people either don't want to or can't be arsed to find out HOW and WHY they get fucked in the ass by the system. Or at least make an informed choice on the issue.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 30, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The kids at my 6th-form that joined up probably thought that PTSD was some kind of games console. Some of them even had ex-forces parents, but I don't know whether even they were aware that it just ain't the same ballgame any more.



Heh, I found out what PTSD was from listening to Paul Hardcastles '19' and growing up in the 80s and the US's obsession with 'Nam.


----------



## waterloowelshy (May 30, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> riiiiigh, another constructive 'non-attacking' post from ww
> 
> why are you bothered? is it your mission to stop people protesting and bow down to the state?
> just WHY?


just asking a question ddraig. keep your knickers on there. You are entitled to mockingly suggest i am a tory whereas i am not allowed to ask the same of you without you having a hissy fit?!  

do you suffer from selective amnesia by any chance?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 30, 2006)

IMO the whole idea of people making informed choices based in rational self-interest is a crock of shit anyway, irrespective of social class.


----------



## WouldBe (May 30, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Woah Would Be, that is my point. I don't think these kids are thick...I was pointing out the arguements on choices that have been put forward.
> 
> In short I don't know what the fuck I'm saying



We've confused each other then.  

The point I was making was several people had pointed out that kids weren't aware of the risks / consequences of joining the army.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 30, 2006)

Hey the idea that that's what people do naturally _is_ a crock of shit - which is one of the reasons so many people blame the world when shit goes wrong.

However, as a prelude to any act that might harm, injure or kill whomever is making the decision it's necessary IMV.

Hell, if this were some kind of anarchism people would have to make informed decisions about stuff because there'd be no government or laws with to have roucourse to (obv talking about a society where there is complete transparency of information here as well)


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 30, 2006)

http://www.armyoneverest.mod.uk/

Hey, it's all mountain climbing and that innit?


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2006)

mwgdrwg said:
			
		

> http://www.armyoneverest.mod.uk/
> 
> Hey, it's all mountain climbing and that innit?



didn't that fail?


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

Here's a poem by R.S. Thomas


A vacation in a forreign land
Uncle sam does the best he can
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Now you remember what the draftman said
Nothing to do all day but stay in bed
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

You be the hero of thw neiborhood
Nobody knows that you left for good
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Smiling faces as you wait to land
But once you get there no one gives a damn
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Hand grenades flying over your head
Missiles flying over your head
If you want to survive get out of bed
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Shots ring out in the dad of night
The sergant calls (stand up and fight)
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Youve got your orders better shoot on sight
Your fingers on the trigger
But it dont seem right
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Night is falling and you just cant see
Is this illusion or reality
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now
Youre in the army now
Oh, oh, youre in the army now

Oh, oh, youre in the army now


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> good god - what ever happened to freedom of choice people?



Ha ha - since when did you give a fuck about it? 

And for what it's worth, "choice people" have always had their freedom, it's the less tasty people that have historically been deprived of their liberty, something of which one suspects that you have quite a lot of experience but are being somewhat coy about, given the unsavoury nature of your posts.

Anyway WW, you need to spend more time on your backhand return than on these boards...

_<sorry, *what *sport are we on about here? >_

@ RB - that's not a poem, it's a Gary Moore song!!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> @ RB - that's not a poem, it's a Gary Moore song!!



O Colonel - no wonder your taste is questionable, it was made into a rock song but it was lifted from one of the countries finest screaming nationalist poets.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 30, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> O Colonel - no wonder your taste is questionable, it was made into a rock song but it was lifted from one of the countries finest screaming nationalist poets.



Oh right, so if you had to choose, would it be RS Thomas, Gary Moore or Ian Botham for your desert island? Well then???


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 30, 2006)

*Every post a gem of wisdom!*




			
				waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> But taking away peoples freedom to join should they so wish is ridiculous.



 You're a fucking laughing stock mate!!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Oh right, so if you had to choose, would it be RS Thomas, Gary Moore or Ian Botham for your desert island? Well then???



Looks like I'll have to give you a clue...QOTSA have been described by some as the new ****** ***


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (May 30, 2006)

Here's the Correct one including my favourite lines

Welsh History


  We were a people taut for war; the hills
Were no harder, the thin grass
Clothed them more warmly than the coarse
Shirts our small bones.
We fought, and were always in retreat,
Like snow thawing upon the slopes
Of Mynydd Mawr; and yet the stranger
Never found our ultimate stand
In the thick woods, declaiming verse
To the sharp prompting of the harp. 
Our kings died, or they were slain
By the old treachery at the ford.
Our bards perished, driven from the halls
Of nobles by the thorn and bramble. 
We were a people bred on legends,
Warming our hands at the red past.
The great were ashamed of our loose rags
Clinging stubbornly to the proud tree
Of blood and birth, our lean bellies
And mud houses were a proof
Of our ineptitude for life. 
*We were a people wasting ourselves
In fruitless battles for our masters,
In lands to which we had no claim,
With men for whom we felt no hatred.* 
We were a people, and are so yet.
When we have finished quarrelling for crumbs
Under the table, or gnawing the bones
Of a dead culture, we will arise
And greet each other in a new dawn.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 30, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Looks like I'll have to give you a clue...QOTSA have been described by some as the new ****** ***



Not enough asterisks there for "GODS OF ROCK".

And anyway, they're not the "new" GODS OF ROCK, they are the one and only GODS OF ROCK, the eternal GODS OF ROCK, the everlasting GODS OF ROCK.

And well you knows it, clart!


----------



## ZIZI (May 30, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> And it's freedom of choice that 14-5 yr old kids were bussed in by their schools to an army recruitment fair in Chirk, Wrexham, is it? A similar thing happened in Margam Park too.
> 
> And it's freedom of choice that army recruitment officers have stepped up their visits to schools in poor areas of Glasgow (revealed under FOI Act) ten fold since the Iraq war due to falling recruitment levels because of the v real danger of new recruits getting:
> 
> ...




I do agree with you Niclas. Kids don't know what they want at that age. They think its glamorous and  *cool* to be in the *army*, unfortunately, reality kicks in at the end of a boot or worse when you see your best friends head being blown apart.

This Country has got nothing to be proud of when you read of yet another soldier being killed.


----------



## llantwit (May 30, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> good god - what ever happened to freedom of choice people? - no one is forced to join the army - its not like national service is it?! - i dont agree with the illegal wars either before anyone starts but some people actually want to join the army. do you have th right to deny them that?!


Very shrill WW. It doesn't become you. Calm down and stop posting rage smilies for a while before you do yourself an injury.
Now this has descended into the usual bun fight so I'm going to take the time to post my thoughts slowy and without shouting, to give you the respect you deserve. 
Nobody here is denying anybody the chance to join the army... shutting down or protesting outside the recruitment centre won't achieve this - it will be a  symbolic protest against the war and the army's recruitment policies.



> the level of stupidity that is being levelled at those wishing to join the army by the so called protesters on here is staggering! - people make choices every day. I dare say that anyone joining the army has a fair understanding of the possibilities that await them upon signing up. We all know and make an informed decision not to join based on our views and beliefs. But taking away peoples freedom to join should they so wish is ridiculous.



Again - nobody's 'taking away' anyone's 'freedom to join' the army. just exactly how could a bunch of protestors do that? What you're suggesting just doesn't make sense to me here. Even if they were planning to blow the place up, that wouldn't take away people's freedom to join - it could at best delay their opportunity to join. But they aren't even planning that. I hope (and suspect) what they're planning to do is both protest against the war, and hand out information and talk to folk about the armed forces to allow people to make a more informed decision that is not just based on the one-sided version the army provides.

On the related point about us 'ALL making informed decissions' to join or not join - well, that's true, we all make these decisions, of course. I haven't read anyone denying this, and if I did I'd disagree with them. Nobody is forced to join the army.

But that's not to say that the army don't have millions of pounds at their disposal to spend on 'persuading' people to join the army, and naturally, the picture they paint isn't of ilegal wars, gulf war syndrome, radiation poisoning from handling DU shells, etc. It's more likely to involve folks climbing Everest and gritty teamwork and heartwarming Spielbergesque 'be the best' moments. Those who oppose the wars the army are sent to fight, and have a different take on what it might be like to join, don't have the same resources to fund their campaigns, so they go and stand outside Army Recruitment Centres (amongst other things) to get their point accross. This is quite understandable to me.

But I haven't finished with the 'we all make free and informed decisions' point you made yet. Like I said, this is obviously true. But the range of information we all have at our disposal varies, and so do the economic circumstances in which we make those decisions. 
First - the range of information. Irrespective of social class, we all have different levels of knowledge about different fields. Period. Also access to research tools like the library and the internet where people can find out about the realities of army life is likewise not universal. We don't all start from a level playing field when we make our informed decisions. Things like literacy, and poverty do play a part in how well equipped a person is to provide him or herself with information to make an informed decision.
Second - the economic circumstances we're in when we make that decision. Even if you and I have exactly the same level of knowledge about the army when we're making our informed decision, our relative wealth at the time of making that decision will always play a role when it comes to the crunch. If you are a graduate with a steady job, and I am a school leaver with slightly below average GCSE or A levels and no immediate prospect of a job, then it will obviously be easier for you to make the decision not to join up than it will be for me. That's just a fact, surely.



> exactly - its all about choice. Who are we to deny people a choice, and by the same measure a possible future? - do the protesters have any other meaningful employment for those who wish to join the army that they are seeking to stop doing so?



It *is* all about choice - it should be about *informed* choice, and that's what should be emphasised by the protestors. If by shutting down the recruitment centre and handing out information about why it might be futile to fight in other mens' wars they can come closer to this, then all power to them. Free choice is not aided by multimilion pound ad campaigns that glorify the army and whitewash over all that's wrong with it/all the negatives.



> This really has to be one of the worst thought out ideas for protesting that has been devised.



It really does have quite a long history, WW. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it as a strategy before. To me it seems to me a logical place to protest against war and the strategies of the state to employ ever more working-class folk as roadside bomb fodder.


----------



## llantwit (May 31, 2006)

long boring thread killer?


----------



## ddraig (May 31, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> long boring thread killer?



no, you've just argued too eloquently and clearly for him, no way will he reply to that (unless he can find one word or sentance to rage about)

anyway, them echo boards outside the newsagents...
yesterday, or the day before they had '2 Welsh soldiers killed in Iraq' or 'more Welsh soldiers killed in Iraq' in big bold letters. 
thought one might be worth getting on the way home but the one near me had had it ripped out (there was still a corner attached)  

reckon it's ok for me to check others to see if it's a couple behind?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 31, 2006)

A more pressing reason to demonstrate, MediaLens on the Massacre at Haditha:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php


----------



## nwnm (Jun 1, 2006)

who's going? I've swapped shifts at work so that I can make it


----------



## llantwit (Jun 1, 2006)

[bourgeois mode/]Can't make it - going to the Hay Festival[/Bourgeois mode off]


----------



## niclas (Jun 1, 2006)

ZIZI said:
			
		

> This Country has got nothing to be proud of when you read of yet another soldier being killed.



Agreed. 'this country' happens to be the only state in W Europe that permits under-18s to go to battle (as opposed to other military work). One day, I hope 'this country' vanishes up its red, white and blue arsehole.

All those 'freedom of choice' people have yet to explain how much freedmo of choice was involved in bussing kids in from school to see shiny equipment, skiing opportunities and the chance of an apprenticeship - sounds a lot more exciting than the factory slog.

Better than the dole? Precisely who's on the dole these days? 

The patronising comments (perhaps made in jest) that the economic conscripts could study harder at school, go to college and get a better a job made me laugh. What if they all did that?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 1, 2006)

I don't think that was in jest at all Niclas.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jun 1, 2006)

this protest still misses the point completely imo.  Protest against the war by all means.

But protesting about recruiting of soldiers is simply ridiculous.  It is taking away freedom of those that may want to join and as ive said before i thought the whole point was that we are against removing peoples freedom?


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 1, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> this protest still misses the point completely imo.  Protest against the war by all means.
> 
> But protesting about recruiting of soldiers is simply ridiculous.  It is taking away freedom of those that may want to join and as ive said before i thought the whole point was that we are against removing peoples freedom?



informing those who may want to join of the realities of war, and that they themselves will be exposed to depleted uranium, can't be a bad thing. Many of the people who join are estate kids escaping the sheer boredom of service jobs, low pay and unemployment. 

Despite the relentless propaganda, which attempts to normalise 1 1/4 million unemployed as full employment,  most people can't realistically be considered to be joining the army out of freely made choice.

I think the issue is one of how the protest is pitched. If it is pitched so as make those who are considering joining feel like the enemy, it may just result in them being more determined to join. But if they're given information denied them by the mainstream media, they may instead see friendly concern.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jun 1, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> informing those who may want to join of the realities of war, and that they themselves will be exposed to depleted uranium, can't be a bad thing. Many of the people who join are estate kids escaping the sheer boredom of service jobs, low pay and unemployment.
> 
> Despite the relentless propaganda, which attempts to normalise 1 1/4 million unemployed as full employment,  most people can't realistically be considered to be joining the army out of freely made choice.
> 
> I think the issue is one of how the protest is pitched. If it is pitched so as make those who are considering joining feel like the enemy, it may just result in them being more determined to join. But if they're given information denied them by the mainstream media, they may instead see friendly concern.


very good point.  Information for those considering joining is vital, so providing all the facts would be reat to ensure that full thought was given to the pros and cons of joining.  But the intial post seems to suggest that the protest aims at shutting recruitment centres down.  Is the protest aimed at informing then? and would it not be better to use the resources of the protest to inform people about the downsides of joining as opposed to just protesting blindly?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 1, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> very good point.  Information for those considering joining is vital, so providing all the facts would be reat to ensure that full thought was given to the pros and cons of joining.  But the intial post seems to suggest that the protest aims at shutting recruitment centres down.  Is the protest aimed at informing then? and would it not be better to use the resources of the protest to inform people about the downsides of joining as opposed to just protesting blindly?


Hey dude, did you read my long and time-consuming post explaining all that? I took ages explaining exactly why this wasn't an example of protesting blindly. Cos from this recent post....


> It is taking away freedom of those that may want to join and as ive said before i thought the whole point was that we are against removing peoples freedom?


... it seems to me like you didn't read what I said at all, like. And all I was doing is trying to help.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jun 1, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Hey dude, did you read my long and time-consuming post explaining all that? I took ages explaining exactly why this wasn't an example of protesting blindly. Cos from this recent post....
> 
> ... it seems to me like you didn't read what I said at all, like. And all I was doing is trying to help.


youre right - i havent the time or inclination to read your whole post in detail at the mo. not ignoring its contents but really cant look at it properly at the mo.  hopefully soon though. ill try and get back to you when i can.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 1, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> [bourgeois mode/]Can't make it - going to the Hay Festival[/Bourgeois mode off]



Try and catch Max, he is speaking at the Hay Fringe Festival


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 1, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> very good point.  Information for those considering joining is vital, so providing all the facts would be reat to ensure that full thought was given to the pros and cons of joining.  But the intial post seems to suggest that the protest aims at shutting recruitment centres down.  Is the protest aimed at informing then? and would it not be better to use the resources of the protest to inform people about the downsides of joining as opposed to just protesting blindly?



As it says at the beginining of the thread: At a time when Britain is occupuying Iraq, is it appropriate to have an army recruitment building in the town centre?  It's as simple as that.

This demo comes in the wake of the My Lai massacre in Haditha. In the same month as the Haditha massacre is uncovered (one of a pattern of massacres documented by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, but unfortunately ignored by the mainstream media), two "anti-war" MPs voted for tougher penalties for soldiers who have qualms about going to Iraq.

I would also suggest that we picket the surgeries of Julie Morgan and Jenny Willott to shame them, and also on Friday 16 June I would ask people to book a meeting with the army recruitment officer visiting the University Careers Centre on Corbett Road for a discussion!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 1, 2006)

O Mate 

My Lai was Vietnam


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 1, 2006)

I reckon he knows that


----------



## ddraig (Jun 1, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/5031112.stm

'he loved his job' 
worth leaving 3 kids fatherless then eh....

RIP Paul


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 1, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> I reckon he knows that



Yep I reckon so depends on his age, but the papers have reported it like a My Lai, so it's not a given

However if you didn't know what it was, it's misinformation.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 1, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Try and catch Max, he is speaking at the Hay Fringe Festival


Will do - cheers Udo. Good luck with the demo.


----------



## niclas (Jun 1, 2006)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> this protest still misses the point completely imo.  Protest against the war by all means.
> 
> But protesting about recruiting of soldiers is simply ridiculous.  It is taking away freedom of those that may want to join and as ive said before i thought the whole point was that we are against removing peoples freedom?



Simple question (cos you seem incapable of taking this in):

Is it freedom of choice for 14-15 yr old school kids to be bussed in to an army recruitment fair by their teachers?

The day the army runs a recruitment advert saying "come and fight for your country in Iraq - you may die" is the day there's freedom of choice for economic conscripts. 

The fact is that the state needs unthinking conscripts for its army - if they thought a bit more they'd join the 1000 deserters. Now that is a thought...


----------



## Dai Sheep (Jun 1, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> *Welsh Army for the Workers Republic [WAWR]*
> 
> As stated earlier, this groups initials form WAWR which is the welsh word for dawn. It announced its existence in the early 1980's and unlike the previous three groups targeted on political and military targets.
> 
> ...



Good book about that published in 1984 called 'Police Conspiracy' (John Osmond) I believe. I read it for some history coursework - also highlights some of the corrupt and incompetent operations of SW Police and special branch in relation to this botched trial.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> O Mate
> 
> My Lai was Vietnam



 Udo has always wanted to live in1968.
I wouldn't be surprised if Haditha is the tip of the iceberg.It makes you wonder how many more incidents like this has taken place.

 Which makes it all the more important to get to the demo tomorrow.

 This article has stuff about the attempted cover up by the US army and other examples of similar massacres.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8955

If they tried to cover up Haditha how many other murders have they successfully covered up?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 4, 2006)

Anyone go?
How was?


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

About 30 or so people.

 The speakers were Plaid,a Stop The War student and someone who has been in Iraq.They were all a bit inaudible partly due to the 1000's of Speedway fans going to the millenium stadium with their bloody air horns.

 And the Red Choir insisted on singing.If you want to present something that looks like a credible protest you don't want a bunch of loonies in red t-shirts jumping up and down and 'singing' out of tune.

 On a postive note the weather was nice.

And at least it happenned as it's been a while since Stop the War did anything in Cardiff and hopefully the next activity will be more successful.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

I'm glad it went OK - pity it was on an event-day and got drowned out, by the sound of it.
Any dialogue with people who wanted to use the recruitment office?
Any trouble/aggro from the police/army folks inside?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

Aww - I quite like the red choir - they're an asset to the Cardiff left, and not a hinderance in my opinion. I've heard this kind of opinion about them before, though - is there some kind of 'history' that I'm unaware of, or is it simply about having loonies in red singing badly?
Genuine question - not looking for an argument or anything - just curious, as there seems to be an general antipathy towards them from the organised left party members in Cardiff.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 5, 2006)

Dai Sheep said:
			
		

> Good book about that published in 1984 called 'Police Conspiracy' (John Osmond) I believe. I read it for some history coursework - also highlights some of the corrupt and incompetent operations of SW Police and special branch in relation to this botched trial.



I've got a copy of that if anyone wants to lend it, unless it was one of the ones 1927 had in which case ask him.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> And the Red Choir insisted on singing.If you want to present something that looks like a credible protest you don't want a bunch of loonies in red t-shirts jumping up and down and 'singing' out of tune.


 That's pathetic - I've never understood why the Cardiff left have such a bugbear with the Red Choir. They certainly outstrip every last one of the rest of us for their commitment and longevity, and they understand solidarity in a way that seems sadly lacking among other groupuscules in this city.

And quite what you imagine a "credible" demonstration to be I don't know. Having had the experience of bringing lots of "normal" mates on demos in the past years, "credible" for them certainly wasn't the swivel-eyed zealots of the STWC or random other paper-sellers ranting down their megaphones. Credible in whose eyes, Osterberg? Is it your own discomfort at having to share a space with a group of other people who - _god forbid!_ - think and act as they so choose, and not as the party hierarchy so determines, that bothers you?

"Loonies" - you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> ...or is it simply about having loonies in red singing badly?



_et tu, brute?_


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 5, 2006)

Do you ( generally now ) think having crusty types, hippies, and rag tags of all groups leftist/anarchist makes for an effective demo, or would smartly dressed non ranting people be more affective for accessing the mainstream ?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Here's some actual political activity taking place in sleepy Cardiff.








Not Osterberg, but a member of the Red Choir engaging in "some actual political activity".


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Do you ( generally now ) think having crusty types, hippies, and rag tags of all groups leftist/anarchist makes for an effective demo, or would smartly dressed non ranting people be more affective for accessing the mainstream ?



I don't believe in the "mainstream" notion, that is the same logic as has made Blair dictate policy in fear of the next day's Daily Mail/Express headline.

For that reason I don't have a problem with the Red Choir. And at the end of the day they do a heck of a lot more (ime) than most of the rest of us, have been doing it for years, and do it with (their own) style and grace.

Fair play to 'em and shame on the carpers.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 5, 2006)

I'll take this to another thread so as not to derail


----------



## lostexpectation (Jun 5, 2006)

so any reports out there?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jun 5, 2006)

Glad to see it was all so worthwhile.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

Christ,sorry.
I just can't stand them that's all.
It's the leftier than though attitude and Ray Davies' martyrdom complex that grates.They must have a revolving door in Cardiff nick for him.
 Sorry but that's just how I feel about them.
I'll keep my opinions of them to myself in future.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Christ,sorry.
> I just can't stand them that's all.
> It's the leftier than though attitude and Ray Davies' martyrdom complex that grates.They must have a revolving door in Cardiff nick for him.
> Sorry but that's just how I feel about them.
> *I'll keep my opinions of them to myself in future.*



That's not the point at all, Osterberg! I'm not trying to have you shut up (I can think of more prominent candidates! ), but I can't see what else apart from personal reactions leads you to call a group like these "loonies".

Surely you'd prefer to live in a diverse Cardiff that embraces the Red Choir - or would you rather that little dash of colour was gone from our shared space as well?


----------



## waterloowelshy (Jun 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> That's not the point at all, Osterberg! I'm not trying to have you shut up (I can think of more prominent candidates! ), QUOTE]
> touche, touche!


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> That's not the point at all, Osterberg! I'm not trying to have you shut up (I can think of more prominent candidates! ), but I can't see what else apart from personal reactions leads you to call a group like these "loonies".
> 
> Surely you'd prefer to live in a diverse Cardiff that embraces the Red Choir - or would you rather that little dash of colour was gone from our shared space as well?



 I'd rather have a diverse left in Cardiff just not the same dwindling bunch of old duffers (including myself of course) who have been around for years . I would have liked the ordinary working class people walking past the demo to take at least some interest.Not be put off by a group of people who are somewhat eccentric( I'm being diplomatic).I'd like to see the anti-war movement to break out of the small insular left ghetto in Cardiff.
 Of course it's not really the Red Choir's fault the demo was small and I wouldn't really wish to get rid of them (not that that would be possible ).
 There was probably to much reliance on e-mails and word of mouth to build the demo.Perhaps more street stalls,fly-posting , more involvment of peace groups and trade unions.
 And the more people on such events the less noticeable the Red Choir will be .
  I am sorry I was so bitchy about the Red Choir but I was really pissed off about the size of the demo and how small and insular the left in cardiff seems to be.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I'm glad it went OK - pity it was on an event-day and got drowned out, by the sound of it.
> Any dialogue with people who wanted to use the recruitment office?
> Any trouble/aggro from the police/army folks inside?


 Er,no the office looked closed.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Er,no the office looked closed.



 I really think you shouldn't have posted that! Even for your own credibility


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a diverse left in Cardiff just not the same dwindling bunch of old duffers (including myself of course) who have been around for years.


Agreed.



			
				osterberg said:
			
		

> I would have liked the ordinary working class people walking past the demo to take at least some interest.Not be put off by a group of people who are somewhat eccentric( I'm being diplomatic).


As I said above, ime the "ordinary people" get put off by nearly all of us. But I don't think it would imply that we need to take up RB's notion that protesting in a suit & tie would make us more accessible... the question is over dialogue, and how we break out of our comfort zones and get talking to our neighbours.






			
				osterberg said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the anti-war movement to break out of the small insular left ghetto in Cardiff.
> Of course it's not really the Red Choir's fault the demo was small and I wouldn't really wish to get rid of them (not that that would be possible ).
> There was probably to much reliance on e-mails and word of mouth to build the demo.Perhaps more street stalls,fly-posting , more involvment of peace groups and trade unions.
> And the more people on such events the less noticeable the Red Choir will be .
> I am sorry I was so bitchy about the Red Choir but I was really pissed off about the size of the demo and how small and insular the left in cardiff seems to be.


Fair comments one and all!


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> I really think you shouldn't have posted that! Even for your own credibility


 I am nothing if not honest.
We in the SWP never exagerrate the success of demonstrations


----------



## lostexpectation (Jun 5, 2006)

sorry never read this thread,

when did it open?

what part of town did it open in, whats it like

saturday was it?

how many staff?

is it busy?

does it go out to other places to recruit


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> I am nothing if not honest.
> We in the SWP never exagerrate the success of demonstrations


 
You've got too much of a sense of humour for the SWP.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> You've got too much of a sense of humour for the SWP.



Yeah, he's obviously an MI5 troll


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> _et tu, brute?_





> Aww - I quite like the red choir - they're an asset to the Cardiff left, and not a hinderance


----------



## osterberg (Jun 5, 2006)

Bah!Rumbled!


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Will do - cheers Udo. Good luck with the demo.



Missed demo, was at climate conference in London, did you catch Max, he told me that some American Military historian tried to take over the meeting


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

Nope - couldn't find any info about fringe meets - I think I missed him. Maybe he was on earlier in the week, as all I could find linked to the fringe was a few gigs in the night.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 5, 2006)

there was a piece in the Echo about it, 50 people in a die in, some firm called Cymru X ( haven't heard of the before )


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Christ,sorry.
> I just can't stand them that's all.
> It's the leftier than though attitude and Ray Davies' martyrdom complex that grates.They must have a revolving door in Cardiff nick for him.
> Sorry but that's just how I feel about them.
> I'll keep my opinions of them to myself in future.



He's in Cardiff nick so often that the inmates have to petition the governor to ban him from 'singing'.

In general it must be said that there is not an oubliette deep enough or dark enough for the Red Choir (sic).


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> there was a piece in the Echo about it, 50 people in a die in, some firm called Cymru X ( haven't heard of the before )


 Cymru who?Some of us did lie down for a bit.I made sure I died leaning against a wall.More comfortable.
 It wasn't 50 people,nearer 30.See?Its the Echo that exaggerates the size of demos,not Socialist Worker


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

Leave Ray and the choir alone!!!
Right - Ray suppoerters should start a solidarity club.
All gather around...

... Altogether now...

"We shall oveeer-cooo-ooome,
We shall oveeer-coooooo-ooome..."


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

Cymru X is Plaid's youth organisation apparrently. Maybe the'X' is to show how 'down with the youth' they are or how 'rad' or something.
Anyway their report on the demo.
http://www.cymrux.org/news/news-3-june-2006-protest-against-the-war-in-iraq-3-6-06.asp


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> He's in Cardiff nick so often that the inmates have to petition the governor to ban him from 'singing'.
> 
> In general it must be said that there is not an oubliette deep enough or dark enough for the Red Choir (sic).



lol! You're just jealous cos he's more in touch wiv da incarcerated proletariat, innit


----------



## ddraig (Jun 6, 2006)

in all seriousness this kind of sneering at people who are involved in demos but not part of a certain narrow ideology really leaves a bad taste and more often than not keeps me away from such things.  really and one reason why 'we' don't get anywhwere.  that and the 'autonomous' cliques with hierarchies and people making decisions about what goes and doesn't.  been there, done that and it gets boring.
shame

fair play to CymruX, the red choir and any groups getting out there 'together'


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

(Deleted cause I didnt like it)


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> in all seriousness this kind of sneering at people who are involved in demos but not part of a certain narrow ideology really leaves a bad taste and more often than not keeps me away from such things.  really and one reason why 'we' don't get anywhwere.  that and the 'autonomous' cliques with hierarchies and people making decisions about what goes and doesn't.  been there, done that and it gets boring.
> shame
> 
> fair play to CymruX, the red choir and any groups getting out there 'together'



So its only OK to sneer at the SWP around here is it?
I demand equal sneering rights!
I demand the right to sneer at those who do not fit my narrow ideology!


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> So its only OK to sneer at the SWP around here is it?


Yup.  Don't tell me yer not used to it by now.


> I demand the right to sneer at those who do not fit my narrow ideology!


Doesn't that go without saying in the SWP?


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

As our glorious leader Chairman Udo said on the Long March(via the Alabany Fish Bar):
 "I am only sectarian to sectarians"


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> As our glorious leader Chairman Udo said on the Long March(via the Alabany Fish Bar):
> "I am only sectarian to sectarians"



Aye, but what does he do to the fish??


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> in all seriousness this kind of sneering at people who are involved in demos but not part of a certain narrow ideology really leaves a bad taste and more often than not keeps me away from such things.  really and one reason why 'we' don't get anywhwere.  that and the 'autonomous' cliques with hierarchies and people making decisions about what goes and doesn't.  been there, done that and it gets boring.
> shame
> 
> fair play to CymruX, the red choir and any groups getting out there 'together'



In all seriousness the lack of a sense of humour is usually indicative that the person or group concerned is a self rightous prig. Were it not for the absurdity of their actions and personas certain individuals and groups would not be 'sneered' at but would be admired for their self sacrifice and heroism. But as long as they continue to provide such excellent material for mockery then they shall be mocked.

With regard to the 'Red Choir' their singing alone is damn good reason to sneer and mock them. Not from the point of view of any narrow ideology, because I have no ideology, but as someone who enjoys music.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> As our glorious leader Chairman Udo said on the Long March(via the Alabany Fish Bar):
> "I am only sectarian to sectarians"



How strange that poor Udo seemingly defines the proletariat as sectarians.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> How strange that poor Udo seemingly defines the proletariat as sectarians.


 He didn't actually say that.That was just my pathetic attempt at humour.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> He didn't actually say that.That was just my pathetic attempt at humour.



I refer you to Freud who pointed out how verbal and by extension textual slips were often indicative of the genuine feelings of the person concerned.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

Freud also had a lot to say about jokes offering us a window into the unconscious. Hmmm. [Scratches chin]


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Freud also had a lot to say about jokes offering us a window into the unconscious. Hmmm. [Scratches chin]



It's a lovely day and all the windows are open.

But are no doubt opaque to those looking in the wrong direction.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

But all could be made clear by simply picking up a brick and throwing it. Hard.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> But all could be made clear by simply picking up a brick and throwing it. Hard.



But by throwing the brick in the wrong direction surely you would be creating illusions in the efficacy of brick throwing not shattering illusions? Or indeed windows.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 7, 2006)

Here's another report.
No sneering now! 

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8989


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 7, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Here's another report.
> No sneering now!
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8989



That's exactly the same one as the Echo!

Campaigners staged a 'die-in' to protest against sending young servicemen to Iraq.

The School Students Against War (SSAW) joined anti-war protesters from across South Wales in an anti-military recruitment protest outside army offices in Cardiff on Saturday.

More than 50 people attended the 'die-in' - which saw protesters lie on the floor covered in fake blood - during the event, jointly organised by the Stop the War Coalition and Cymru X.

Steve Rolf, 16, a pupil at Bro Morgannwg School in the Vale of Glamorgan and member of SSAW, said: 'Recruitment centres like this one are sending our young people to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Our message is, it's not welcome in Cardiff and that we have to work against an attack on Iraq.'

Bethan Jenkins, of Cymru X, said: 'We initiated this protest to show the war in Iraq is illegal.

So who could sue who - The SWP say its copyrighted


----------



## osterberg (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm sure its just coincidence 

The SW one to compare



> Cardiff activists stage ‘die-in’
> Anti-war campaigners in Cardiff staged a “die-in” last Saturday to protest against sending young men and women to fight in Iraq.
> 
> Cardiff’s School Students Against War (SSAW) group joined anti?war protesters from across South Wales to demonstrate against military recruitment outside army offices in the city.
> ...



 They both start with what the demo was about as any report would do .
And then who organised it which is logical.
And two of the organisers are interviewed which would be logical.
And the quotes in both articles are different apart from Steve Rolf's 1st sentence.

Now where my defence is a bit weak is this bit.



> Some 50 people attended the “die-in”, which saw protesters lie on the floor covered in fake blood.



 This is word for word what's in both articles.
Presumably someone in London needed to put the size of the demo in the article,went to the icwales website and may very well(I have no way of knowing) nicked the sentence.He or she was probably a bit busy and in a hurry but obviously shouldn't have done it _if_ that's what happenned.

 So that's my best attempt at a defence.I have to try.They are both a bit  similar but the important thing is that SW has reported it.There is little enough happening politically in Cardiff but when it does it needs to be publiscised.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 8, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> As our glorious leader Chairman Udo said on the Long March(via the Albany Fish Bar):
> "I am only sectarian to sectarians"



I should note that I have actually stated "I am only sectarian to the sectarians" in the past, but not necessarily on a long march via Albany Fish Bar, but I borrowed the saying from Tariq Ali who attributed it to the guru of the 4th International, Ernest Mandel (RIP).

On the similarity between Echo and SW reports, the reason is simple.  The Echo didn't turn up on Saturday, so Steve emailed them a report and photo's which they printed, I expect he sent the same report to SW.

It is quite common practice, journalists are lazy, so if you practically write their piece for them, they are more likely to print it.

LET A HUNDRED FLOWERS BLOSSOM!


----------



## llantwit (Jun 8, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> journalists are lazy, so if you practically write their piece for them, they are more likely to print it.
> QUOTE]
> Never a truer word Udo.
> I'm working on a project for the Journalism dept in the Uni about how much they rely on PRs and Press Agencies - it's fucking shocking how many cut and paste jobs there are every day in the nationals, let alone the worse-funded local and regional press.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 8, 2006)

Oh,there you are then.The Echo are lazy bastards and the Socialist Worker is a model of journalistic integrity .
 I knew I'd heard someone saying he was only sectarian to sectarians but couldn't remember who.But Udo's was a good guess.
 Good saying too even if a certain sectarian willfully miscontrued it.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 8, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> even if a certain sectarian willfully miscontrued it.


Sectarian!!!!
I think you'll find, comrade, that it was you wot originally misconstrued the misconstrual. And... that this misconstrual was based around an argument in which Boshkysklevsky misconstrued the comments of comrade Jizzinsky during the second international.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 8, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I should note that I have actually stated "I am only sectarian to the sectarians" in the past, but not necessarily on a long march via Albany Fish Bar, but I borrowed the saying from Tariq Ali who attributed it to the guru of the 4th International, Ernest Mandel (RIP).
> 
> On the similarity between Echo and SW reports, the reason is simple.  The Echo didn't turn up on Saturday, so Steve emailed them a report and photo's which they printed, I expect he sent the same report to SW.
> 
> ...



It's quite curious that a report destined for SW is quite acceptable for publication in the conservative and anti-union South Wales Echo.

By the way the Fourth International was founded by Leon Trotsky not Ernest Germain of the disunited sectarians.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 8, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Sectarian!!!!
> I think you'll find, comrade, that it was you wot originally misconstrued the misconstrual. And... that this misconstrual was based around an argument in which Boshkysklevsky misconstrued the comments of comrade Jizzinsky during the second international.


Was that at the organising sub-comittee of the second conference of the second international or at the caucus of Jizzinskyites at the third conference?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> It's quite curious that a report destined for SW is quite acceptable for publication in the conservative and anti-union South Wales Echo.
> 
> By the way the Fourth International was founded by Leon Trotsky not Ernest Germain of the disunited sectarians.






			
				llantwit said:
			
		

> Sectarian!!!!
> I think you'll find, comrade, that it was you wot originally misconstrued the misconstrual. And... that this misconstrual was based around an argument in which Boshkysklevsky misconstrued the comments of comrade Jizzinsky during the second international.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> By the way the Fourth International was founded by Leon Trotsky not Ernest Germain of the disunited sectarians.



Nitpick,nitpick,nitpick...Sure you're not a Jizzinskyite?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 8, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Was that at the organising sub-comittee of the second conference of the second international or at the caucus of Jizzinskyites at the third conference?


As well you know, it was neither. Comrade. Your further attempts to obfuscate and muddy the waters of the discussion leave me with no recourse but to, in the revolutionary parlance of our times, 'do a flounce'.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 8, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Nitpick,nitpick,nitpick...Sure you're not a Jizzinskyite?



Surely pointing out what was an inaccurate statement, in terms of both fact and politics, is germane to a discussion of journalistic ethics?

Indeed I feel that it needs pointing out that the forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party were expelled from the Fourth International for upholding the revolutionary politics of Leon Trotsky. Politics which the current leadership of the SWP have abandoned.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Surely pointing out what was an inaccurate statement, in terms of both fact and politics, is germane to a discussion of journalistic ethics?
> 
> Indeed I feel that it needs pointing out that the forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party were expelled from the Fourth International for upholding the revolutionary politics of Leon Trotsky. Politics which the current leadership of the SWP have abandoned.


He's right on both counts, there. You gotta admit.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 8, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Surely pointing out what was an inaccurate statement, in terms of both fact and politics, is germane to a discussion of journalistic ethics?
> .



But *nobody claimed* that Ernest Mandel was the founder of the 4th International on this thread - he was however, for much of the 20th Century, regarded as the leading theoretician in this group or more precisely, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, hence my reference to him as the guru - and when was the last time you dictated to the proletariate?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 8, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> But *nobody claimed* that Ernest Mandel was the founder of the 4th International on this thread - he was however, for much of the 20th Century, regarded as the leading theoretician in this group and a key figure in it's secretariat, hence my reference to him as the guru - and when was the last time you dictated to the proletariate?



It goes against all I believe in and understand Marxism to be to dictate to the proletariat.

Furthermore the organisation which Ernest Mandel was influential within had no political continuity with that founded by Leon Trotsky as was once the position of the group you are a member of my friend. Organisationally there is still less continuity given the repeated splits and fusions that the disunited sectarians (a fond nickname I assure you) has been subject to since first plitting in 1952/53.

Frankly the reference to a man who for all his faults lived as a partisan of the social revolution as a 'guru' is insulting to his memory. this is not siome penny ante cult leader but a socialist militant who survived the concentration camps you so blithely dismiss in such a manner. Shame on you.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 8, 2006)

I can't find any socialist handbags on Google's image search


----------



## Dic Penderyn (Jun 8, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> I can't find any socialist handbags on Google's image search



Then look harder


----------



## llantwit (Jun 8, 2006)

:d :d :d
fucken smilies not workin'. You know what I mean.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 8, 2006)

Dic Penderyn said:
			
		

> Then look harder



That my dear fellow is a capitalist handbag. Leastways it bears the image of a bourgeois icon upon it.

Wouldn't go with my outfit anyhow.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 9, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> He's right on both counts, there. You gotta admit.


 No.It's bollocks.He's a bigger shit stirrer than you mate.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No.It's bollocks.He's a bigger shit stirrer than you mate.


That's true, too. 
I remember him on the social forum boards in the beginning.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 9, 2006)

...aye, the beginning of the end.

Bring it on!


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No.It's bollocks.He's a bigger shit stirrer than you mate.



If that were true then it should be easy for you to point out any inaccuracies in my posts. But the fact is that you cannot.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> If that were true then it should be easy for you to point out any inaccuracies in my posts. But the fact is that you cannot.


Neppy said:


> Politics which the current leadership of the SWP have abandoned.


  That.
It's bollocks.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 9, 2006)

My dear Osterberg asserting that the SWP is a revolutionary organisation is not the same as proving that assertion.

For example the SWP is opposed, and quite rghtly, to the presence of imperialist troops in the Balkans including Kosova.

Despite which the SWP has only recently campaigned for a man who was a part of the imperialist occupation of Kosova.

This individual is for imperialist troops out of Iraq it has to be said but is clearly only an anti-imperialist when it suits his political aganda. I would suggest that the SWP are in this case grossly negligent in not acquainting themselves with this chaps views and/or unprincipled opportunists who are being used as tools by those more clever than they.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> My dear Osterberg asserting that the SWP is a revolutionary organisation is not the same as proving that assertion.


 Nor is asserting that the SWP is not a revolutionary organisation the same as proving _that_ assertion.

 As for Galloway ( I assume that is to whom you refer) I don't see what is wrong in a united front  working with people you have dissagreed with in the past.
Otherwise you'll find yourself very lonely and isolated.

 *swings handbag*


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Nor is asserting that the SWP is not a revolutionary organisation the same as proving _that_ assertion.
> 
> As for Galloway ( I assume that is to whom you refer) I don't see what is wrong in a united front of working with people you have dissagreed with in the past.
> Otherwise you'll find yourself very lonely and isolated.
> ...



Try again. Not Galloway in fact I have no idea what his position was on Kosova. That you do not know suggests that you are ignorant of the class nature of your allies in Respect.

And of course the imperialist occupation of Kosova is not something with which you might have disagreed with allies in the past they are still there. And now you have a councillor who helped and abetted imperialism in Kosova.

Curious by the way that you see fit to describe Respect as a 'united front' when in fact it does not fit the classical definition of such a formation as given by the Comintern as a short term alliance between tendencies within the workers movement for a specific, usually defensive, action.

Respect is, of course, a medium to long term project based on building an electoral machine not involving and does not involve any significant forces within the workers movement. It is not then in any sense Trotsky would have recognised a 'united front'.

Anyways its a lovely day and i wish you joy of it.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Try again. Not Galloway in fact I have no idea what his position was on Kosova. That you do not know suggests that you are ignorant of the class nature of your allies in Respect.
> 
> And of course the imperialist occupation of Kosova is not something with which you might have disagreed with allies in the past they are still there. And now you have a councillor who helped and abetted imperialism in Kosova.
> 
> ...



 Sorry,unlike you I don't know everything nor do I know the details of every Respect councillor off by heart either.I don't particularly care what they may have done in the past either.

 Nor do I give a flying fuck whether or not Respect fits you're 80 year old definition of a 'united front' either and neither do the thousands who voted for it.

 In fact I have more respect for your mysterious councillor who by taking part in the first serious left of labour electoral challenge for years on an anti-war,anti-privatisation and anti-imperialist platform(which is all there on the Respect website for everybody to see) as done more for socialism than you have done with all your years of carping from the sidelines.

And you can take your patronising tone and stick it.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Sorry,unlike you I don't know everything nor do I know the details of every Respect councillor off by heart either.I don't particularly care what they may have done in the past either.
> 
> Nor do I give a flying fuck whether or not Respect fits you're 80 year old definition of a 'united front' either and neither do the thousands who voted for it.
> 
> ...



OOOH! Get her. 
Nice one Osterberg - go get 'im!!!


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Sorry,unlike you I don't know everything nor do I know the details of every Respect councillor off by heart either.I don't particularly care what they may have done in the past either.
> 
> Nor do I give a flying fuck whether or not Respect fits you're 80 year old definition of a 'united front' either and neither do the thousands who voted for it.
> 
> ...



My dear Osterberg that 80 year old definition of the United Front was that of Lenin and Trotsky not mine. And if I recall correctly the SWP claims to stand on the politics of Lenin and Trotsky.

Now as for that councillor he is also the barrister for the impeccably bourgeois Muslim Association of Britain if that helps you identify him. Quite how he was promoting anti-imperialiost politics in Kosova must remain a mystery unless you wish to enlighten us?

And it still a lovely day and I still wish you the joy of it.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> My dear Osterberg that 80 year old definition of the United Front was that of Lenin and Trotsky not mine. And if I recall correctly the SWP claims to stand on the politics of Lenin and Trotsky.
> 
> Now as for that councillor he is also the barrister for the impeccably bourgeois Muslim Association of Britain if that helps you identify him. Quite how he was promoting anti-imperialiost politics in Kosova must remain a mystery unless you wish to enlighten us?
> 
> And it still a lovely day and I still wish you the joy of it.


 I'm not denying your definition of the united front.Whoopee for you,you've 
read loads of books.I know I haven't read as much as I should have done but 
all the theory in the world isn't worth a fart in a wind tunnel if you don't get off your bum and put it into practice.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 9, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> I'm not denying your definition of the united front.Whoopee for you,you've
> read loads of books.I know I haven't read as much as I should have done but
> all the theory in the world isn't worth a fart in a wind tunnel if you don't get off your bum and put it into practice.



Oh come now my dear Osterberg you've read a few books in your time. And you are correct theory alone will change nothing at all.

But was it not Lenin who argued, correctly in my opinion, that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice?

It would seem then that if, as you would seem to agree, that Respect is not an example of the united front (theoretical proposition) then it cannot be an example of revolutionary practice on the part of the SWP. Which begs many a question.

And its still a nice day and a nice evening to come. I wish you joy of yours.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 12, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> But was it not Lenin who argued, correctly in my opinion, that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice?
> .



If Lenin was correct about the unity of theory and practice, then you're up shit creek, as you engage in zero revolutionary practice.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 12, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> If Lenin was correct about the unity of theory and practice, then you're up shit creek, as you engage in zero revolutionary practice.



But at least I have a paddle with which I can hope to propel myself out of the creek.

Lacking such a paddle, that is to say Marxist theory, you can but dig yourself deeper into the creek.

Rather cooler today but quite pleasant don't you think? Have a nice day.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 12, 2006)

never mind


----------



## ddraig (Jun 12, 2006)

the twats were out with their big tank blocking up the road in town today


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jun 12, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> the twats were out with their big tank blocking up the road in town today



Sugar's good for that


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 12, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> But was it not Lenin who argued, correctly in my opinion, that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice?



C'mon Osterberg, handbag 'im with some Debord, FFS!!




			
				a wiser man than me said:
			
		

> Revolutionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology, and *it knows it*!


----------



## osterberg (Jun 13, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> But was it not Lenin who argued, correctly in my opinion, that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice?
> 
> QUOTE]
> Without revolutionary practice what is the point of revolutionary theory?
> ...


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 13, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Without revolutionary practice what is the point of revolutionary theory?
> 
> The weather continues fine.



You miss the point. The SWP has neither.

Certainly it has practice and more than its fair share of theory. But the latter is disconnected from its practice and is not informed by it.

Yes the weather remains pleasant but alas I shall be stuck on a coach for much of the day.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 13, 2006)

Going anywhere nice?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 13, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Going anywhere nice?


Don't try and engage him in pleasant conversation. He bites.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 13, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Going anywhere nice?



No London.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 13, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Don't try and engage him in pleasant conversation. He bites.



Osterburg has had his tetanus shots so it should be OK.

Oh shit look at the time!!!!


----------



## llantwit (Jun 13, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Osterburg has had his tetanus shots so it should be OK.
> 
> Oh shit look at the time!!!!


----------



## osterberg (Jun 13, 2006)

It's raining now! 
Neppy's taken the good weather with him.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> It's raining now!
> Neppy's taken the good weather with him.



Nah it was worse in London hot sticky and very wet.

And now the sun is shiing again to welcome me back to the land of my forefathers!


----------

