# Hands Off Gaza Protest, Sat 3 Jan



## brix (Jan 2, 2009)

Hands Off Gaza: Stop the Bombing: Free Palestine
Assemble 12:30pm Embankment, WC2

Is anyone else going to this?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 2, 2009)

brix said:


> Hands Off Gaza: Stop the Bombing: Free Palestine
> Assemble 12:30pm Embankment, WC2
> 
> Is anyone else going to this?



No.

After the brilliant demo's outside the embassy to call a sodding useless demo through londdon just pisses me off.

More effective to send ehud olmert a postcard asking him to be nicer imho


----------



## brix (Jan 2, 2009)

Yeah, thanks for that


----------



## ajdown (Jan 2, 2009)

I wonder why nobody ever thinks to ask Palestine to stop bombing Israel?


----------



## brix (Jan 2, 2009)

Yeah, that's a thought.

Thanks for that too


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I wonder why nobody ever thinks to ask Palestine to stop bombing Israel?



People do and the request always gets ignored.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 2, 2009)

I'll be there.  Tried to convince my son but he's like, duh what good will it do?  Imagine where we'd be if we were all defeatist cynics....


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

brix said:


> Hands Off Gaza: Stop the Bombing: Free Palestine
> Assemble 12:30pm Embankment, WC2
> 
> Is anyone else going to this?



If Martians landed and started disintegrating millions of humans with their death rays the SWP would march from Embankment to Trafalgar Square about it.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> If Martians landed and started disintegrating millions of humans with their death rays the SWP would march from Embankment to Trafalgar Square about it.



Yeah but the SWP would be on the side of the murderous aliens probably.


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

zachor said:


> yeah but the swp would be on the side of the murderous aliens probably.



stop the hate
---------------
hands off our new martian friends
---------------------------------------
free palestine


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> stop the hate
> ---------------
> hands off our new martian friends
> ---------------------------------------
> free palestine



LOL!  Nice one.  There is a Daily Mail headline bollocks generator maybe there should be one for the SWP.

'Martian authoritarians are our friends'


----------



## brix (Jan 2, 2009)

shygirl said:


> I'll be there.  Tried to convince my son but he's like, duh what good will it do?  Imagine where we'd be if we were all defeatist cynics....



Great that you're coming along though.  

I was beginning to worry that only complete arses were responding to this thread


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> LOL!  Nice one.  There is a Daily Mail headline b- generator maybe there should be one for the SWP.
> 
> 'Martian authoritarians are our friends'



Remember, the bottom line is always "Free Palestine":

Stop the Cuts
-------------
Hands off our NHS
------------------
Free Palestine


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

brix said:


> I was beginning to worry that only complete arses were responding to this thread



As opposed to the real life complete arses on the demo?


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> Remember, the bottom line is always "Free Palestine":
> 
> Stop the Cuts
> -------------
> ...



Very true.  My mistake.

It should read 

Martian invaders welcome here (complete with little yellow lolipop)

Save the NHS (join our cult here)

Free Palestine


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

Meet at Embankment
---------------------
March to Trafalgar Square
-------------------------
Free Palestine


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Very true.  My mistake.
> 
> It should read
> 
> ...



Don't forget to buy a paper.


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

SWP crib sheet:


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> Don't forget to buy a paper.



Oh yes buy the paper.  



A real incident

Swappie  'socialist worker get your socialist worker here'  

Me "No thanks fuck off I don't support racist organisations"

Immedately followed by me giving the swappie reasons why I think the swaps are a racist org (Respect etc) 

then followed by swappie mumbling something incoherent and going away.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> SWP crib sheet:



Fucking spot on.

I wonder if the 'go back to the ovens' crew will be on this demo?  Like they were in Fort Lauderdale recently.  Some of the Pro-Pal activists are the nicest people you could ever wish to meet on a secure mental health ward.  Not sure they should be allowed out on their own or permitted sharp objects though.


----------



## bingiman (Jan 2, 2009)

I will be there and hope to bring my family.


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

bingiman said:


> I will be there and hope to bring my family.



Don't forget to buy them a paper each.

Everyone loves to get a souvenir when they go up to London.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Fucking spot on.
> 
> I wonder if the 'go back to the ovens' crew will be on this demo?  Like they were in Fort Lauderdale recently.  Some of the Pro-Pal activists are the nicest people you could ever wish to meet on a secure mental health ward.  Not sure they should be allowed out on their own or permitted sharp objects though.



Oh do fuck off and cheerlead the killing of children elsewhere.


----------



## winjer (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> I wonder if the 'go back to the ovens' crew will be on this demo?  Like they were in Fort Lauderdale recently.





> Extremists spray-painted "Mohammed is a pig" and "Death to Arabs" early Sunday on the walls and doors of the Sea Mosque in Jaffa


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048562.html

Friends of yours?


----------



## winjer (Jan 2, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> After the brilliant demo's outside the embassy to call a sodding useless demo through londdon just pisses me off.



Room for both?




			
				the PSC said:
			
		

> Following Saturday's national demonstration, there will be a mass protest outside the Israeli Embassy from 4.00 - 6.00 pm. Please join if you are attending the national demonstration.
> 
> MASS PROTEST AT ISRAELI EMBASSY
> After national demonstration
> ...


----------



## cantsin (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Oh yes buy the paper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fascinating tale ....zzzz..... if you're going to make this stuff up, could you not manage something a bit more interesting you freak ?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 2, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Fucking spot on.
> 
> I wonder if the 'go back to the ovens' crew will be on this demo?  Like they were in Fort Lauderdale recently.  Some of the Pro-Pal activists are the nicest people you could ever wish to meet on a secure mental health ward.  Not sure they should be allowed out on their own or permitted sharp objects though.



the last time I was on  Palestine march ( mid 90's ) a small handful of fash (alleged tbh  - someone seemed to know who was who etc ) were dealt with quickly and effectively - I'd hope it be the same this time


----------



## cantsin (Jan 2, 2009)

untethered said:


> Don't forget to buy them a paper each.
> 
> Everyone loves to get a souvenir when they go up to London.




I really , really hate people who tell others about the need  to "get a life " , but in your instance , with a new year ahead + hope in your heart ( possibly ) , do you not think ...just...maybe ...you should give something else a try ? 

peace and goodwill n'all that !


----------



## untethered (Jan 2, 2009)

cantsin said:


> I really , really hate people who tell others about the need  to "get a life " , but in your instance , with a new year ahead + hope in your heart ( possibly ) , do you not think ...just...maybe ...you should give something else a try ?



Such as buying one for myself?



cantsin said:


> peace and goodwill n'all that !



Of course.


----------



## brix (Jan 2, 2009)

Cantsin, just ignore them.  I reckon they don't get enough attention at home because this is complete attention seeking behaviour  

Don't give them what they want!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jan 2, 2009)

I might be up for some of this. If I can get there in time.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 3, 2009)

I might be, but I'm not particularly inspired.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 3, 2009)

I'll be there. I caught some of the demo last week and people in the area were generally in favour of it.

The likes of Zachor are in the minority of knee-jerk, reactionary panty-sniffing armchair generals, I wouldn't get too hot under the collar about him. I've scraped more interesting specimens off my left-wing shoe


----------



## dessiato (Jan 3, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I wonder why nobody ever thinks to ask Palestine to stop bombing Israel?



Hamas decided to not continue the truce, then started sending missiles randomly into Israel killing civilians.

So, as you asked, why not get Hamas to stop killing Israelis?

Hamas has declared itself to be a terrorist organisation with the aim of destroying Israel. The UK or any other nation would not allow themselves to be attacked like this without some reaction. Why should Israel?

Why not protest against Hamas actions?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 3, 2009)

dessiato said:


> Hamas has declared itself to be a terrorist organisation with the aim of destroying Israel.


Has it really?  When did it do that then?

Incidentally, I don't suppose you know how many Israelis have been killed since Hamas renewed their terrible onslaught against them?


----------



## peacepete (Jan 3, 2009)

a post on the indymedia newswire suggests things are getting quite heated at the embassy. anyone know anything more?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Has it really?  When did it do that then?
> 
> Incidentally, I don't suppose you know how many Israelis have been killed since Hamas renewed their terrible onslaught against them?


 perhaps you should pay attention


> Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
> 
> "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).







> Article Twenty-Two:
> For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
> 
> You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
> ...




 from the charter of Hamas


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 3, 2009)

peacepete said:


> a post on the indymedia newswire suggests things are getting quite heated at the embassy. anyone know anything more?



According to the BBC news some people have been attacking British police officers. What on earth is the point of that? 


> The BBC's Barnie Choudhury, who is at the scene, said the atmosphere had become more angry and missiles had been thrown at police.
> 
> In a statement, police said: "From approximately 1800 [GMT], a small minority of people at the front of the barrier line made repeated attempts to break through the barriers.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Oh yes buy the paper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, what an amazingly interesting and amusing anitdote and so full of insight and detail.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> According to the BBC news some people have been attacking British police officers. What on earth is the point of that?



There's no point in using violence when you're almost certainly going to lose the fight. When you're certain (or near certain) of winning, on the other hand, it's just a tactic like any other.

I didn't notice much restraint from your plod mates at Kingsnorth, come to think of it, when the pepper spray and batons were freely used, as were fists and boots.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 3, 2009)

barney_pig said:


> perhaps you should pay attention
> from the charter of Hamas



Perhaps you should pay attention to the reasons why Hamas has grown as a mass movement amongst the Palestinians. You might discover it was largely due to the Israeli occupation, the covert support Israel gave to Hamas in the 1980s and the emasculation by repression of the secular PLO and the Palestinian Authority to the point that Palestinians looked elsewhere for leadership. Israel's butchery in Gaza will strengthen Hamas's hand, just as the blitz of Lebanon boosted Hizbullah a few years back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 3, 2009)

Imagine the US gives England to the Irish or Scottish; whatever. The English are dispossessed and crowded into East Anglia and Devon. They are in camps with no supplies, no jobs. They might just resent that; launch a rocket occasionaly, just to remind people they are still alive - barely.

The youth of these reservations might just become politicised, dontcha think?


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> If Martians landed and started disintegrating millions of humans with their death rays the SWP would march from Embankment to Trafalgar Square about it.




How can you say that?

The SWP would get the biggest petition going ,that would sort the martians out.


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (Jan 3, 2009)

Yes this sounds good.A good excuse to have a walk be a good social occasion. Will do fuck all for palistine but it should be a good day out.


----------



## LikeMike (Jan 3, 2009)

jer said:


> Imagine the US gives England to the Irish or Scottish; whatever. The English are dispossessed and crowded into East Anglia and Devon. They are in camps with no supplies, no jobs. They might just resent that; launch a rocket occasionaly, just to remind people they are still alive - barely.
> 
> The youth of these reservations might just become politicised, dontcha think?


Comparisons such as jer, Babylondon's do help bring home the enormity of what Israel's ruling class is visiting upon the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza ghetto. But her/his geography is off. Gaza is smaller than the Isle of Wight (pop: 150,000). It makes the case even more strongly. Which Israeli general was it who recently threatened Gazans with a new holocaust? Looks like the butchers of of the IDF are trying to effect that final solution.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

Wishing I was at the embassy now.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 3, 2009)

Who went? How people attended, what happened, any one take any photos?


----------



## gabi (Jan 3, 2009)

5,000 according to the media. 10,000 according to the organisers. so as usual, i guess somewhere in between.

wish i'd known about it. must be another one tomorrow surely?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Are the paper sales figures in yet?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Some of the Pro-Pal activists are the nicest people you could ever wish to meet on a secure mental health ward.  Not sure they should be allowed out on their own or permitted sharp objects though.


Please can you refrain from making "jokes" like this about mental health? They are extremely offensive to people who actually have these types of health problems. A lot of people in 'secure wards' are there due to being suicidal for example. Others are just extremely stressed out. Many people are often kept in to oversee medication, prevent them being harmed by themselves or by other people and to give them a therapeutic environment - not because they would otherwise attack other people. Where is the humour in making them out to be monsters? Thanks.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

I was part of large crowd of people who had gathered at the embassy arriving by public transport after the rally, well before the couple of thousand or so who had walked from Trafalgar square arrived. By that time the crowd was already a couple of thousand strong, loads of banners and several Israeli flags were burnt. It was already pretty aggressive with a coffee shop being taken over (mostly by the press it seemed) and a complete loonspud climbing all the way up a lamp post to install a Palestinian flag. The police had two lines in front of the Embassy the front of which were in full riot gear. The barriers kept us about 10 meters from the positions we occupied on Sunday last week. After the comrades arrived from the square the police pulled out their batons and shields, I was at the barriers, although not right in front of the embassy. Some sticks (the utterly flimsy ones from banners) were thrown over the police lines and they responded with baton charges at the front rows of protesters. 

I saw one guy with blood streaming down his face who claimed he had been chanting “shame, shame , shame on you” when he was struck by an officer. At around 18:00 we broke through the front barriers and pushed the pigs back to either side although they still had their second line and kept us from getting right to the gate of the embassy. More flags were burnt, people climbed up the buildings opposite the embassy and we exchanged missiles with the police batons. At around 19:00 the police lines attempted to squeeze us to the point where we had only the exit into the side road to get out, many people including me took this opportunity. I watched as the police lines rushed in and several people were carried out with injuries. I saw one man in a neck brace by the police vans and two others being carried away. 

I left at about 20:00 with the police becoming ever more aggressive but people still determined to chant and resist the police lines. I was told by an individual who was at the front of the march going through the Hyde park corner tunnel, that once the mass was underground three lines of riot police took the opportunity to charge with the front few lines of protesters mostly left on the floor, these included many families who had walked from the square. Panic momentarily ensued with people running back up the other way while others moved forward against the police. Thank god the police for whatever reason withdrew and those not scared off made their way to the embassy. I can vouch for the fact that they looked mighty pissed off by the time they arrived. There will be more of this. Resistance against the murdering filth of Israel must not stop until Gaza is free, if we need to face the pigs batons every day till then then so be it.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Please can you refrain from making "jokes" like this about mental health? They are extremely offensive to people who actually have these types of health problems. A lot of people in 'secure wards' are there due to being suicidal for example. Others are just extremely stressed out. Many people are often kept in to oversee medication, prevent them being harmed by themselves or by other people and to give them a therapeutic environment - not because they would otherwise attack other people. Where is the humour in making them out to be monsters? Thanks.



Agreed.

I get enough of that IRL, without having to put up with it here as well.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 3, 2009)

brix said:


> Yeah, thanks for that



why are you rolling your eyes? Looks like several thousand people COMPLETELY AGREED WITH ME and took it to the embassy.

dickhead.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

kavenism said:


> At around 18:00 we broke through the front barriers push the pigs back to either side although they still had their second line and kept us from getting right to the gate of the embassy. More flags were burnt, people climbed up the buildings opposite the embassy and we exchanged missiles with the police batons.



I thought you were protesting about violence against innocent people.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I thought you were protesting about violence against innocent people.


Maybe when the police start baton charging, punching, clubbing and kicking people around for no reason they cease to be seen as 'innocent'? Just a thought - I wasn't there so I can't say. Were you?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Maybe when the police start baton charging, punching, clubbing and kicking people around for no reason they cease to be seen as 'innocent'? Just a thought - I wasn't there so I can't say. Were you?



I imagine the police were there because it was their job to protect the Israeli Embassy from damage and its occupants from violence. The police are empowered to use force in the course of their duty. On the other hand, protesters are not empowered to use violence in the furtherance of their aims and will likely meet a robust police response if they do.

Quite rightly.


----------



## peacepete (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered, you are what is technically known as a sycophant.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I imagine the police were there because it was their job to protect the Israeli Embassy from damage and its occupants from violence. The police are empowered to use force in the course of their duty. On the other hand, protesters are not empowered to use violence in the furtherance of their aims and will likely meet a robust police response if they do.
> 
> Quite rightly.



Ever heard of a little thing called the 'Battle Of The Beanfield', untethered?

You may want to Google it and if the scenes on the Youtube footage don't change your mind, then nothing will, although I fear that's already the case.

We have right on our side, and what's right matters to me a great deal more than what's legal, frankly. The laws in this country are often misused to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, so when the law is as corrupt as it undoubtedly is, then people will sometimes reserve the right to ignore it.

And quite rightly so, IMO.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

peacepete said:


> untethered, you are what is technically known as a sycophant.



To whom?

I support the rule of law. People have a right to protest peacefully and lawfully, but not to attack embassies and the police. I will defend their right to the former, and the police's action against the latter.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Ever heard of a little thing called the 'Battle Of The Beanfield', untethered?



I'm very familiar with it, yes. Surely the problem there was that the police were breaking the law rather than upholding it?

I hardly see the connection between that and today's events at the embassy.



Bakunin said:


> We have right on our side, and what's right matters to me a great deal more than what's legal, frankly.



You couldn't be more wrong. The law is all that stands between you and any arbitrary group of thugs that want to make your life a misery, and that sometimes includes some police.



Bakunin said:


> The laws in this country are often misused to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, so when the law is as corrupt as it undoubtedly is, then people will sometimes reserve the right to ignore it.



While that may sometimes be the case, do you think the police should have let the protesters run riot through the Israeli Embassy?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I imagine the police were there because it was their job to protect the Israeli Embassy from damage and its occupants from violence. The police are empowered to use force in the course of their duty. On the other hand, protesters are not empowered to use violence in the furtherance of their aims and will likely meet a robust police response if they do.


The police are required by law to have grounds to use reasonable force. They are not premitted to use it randomly, excessively or unneccessarily.

Members of the public (ie anyone) are allowed by law to use reasonable force to defend themselves if necessary.

Quite rightly.

Presumably to the answer to "Were you there?" is "No, I was not there".


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> The police are required by law to have grounds to use reasonable force. They are not premitted to use it randomly, excessively or unneccessarily.



True. I imagine thousands of protesters illegally trying to break into the sovereign embassy of another state is sufficient justification to resort to force.

Unless you know better, of course.



_float_ said:


> Members of the public (ie anyone) are allowed by law to use reasonable force to defend themselves if necessary.



And "necessary" includes in this case taking the option to flee where it is available. That hardly seems to be supported by the quotation from someone who was there about "pushing through barriers" and "exchanging missiles".



_float_ said:


> Presumably to the answer to "Were you there?" is "No, I was not there".



No, I wasn't there. Your point is what?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I support the rule of law. People have a right to protest peacefully and lawfully, but not to attack embassies and the police. I will defend their right to the former, and the police's action against the latter.


Will you also speak out against the police if they use unneccesary and excessive violence? Will you defend people's universal right to self defence? Or are you just chucking in politically-motivated and/or provocative comments on this and similar threads?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

I should add that it was good natured until the police pulled out their shields and batons and came right up face to face with the protestors, and also once the barriers were breached all we did was carry on chanting at the embassy, we were not just facing the police. I'm pretty horse after all the singing I did today. 

I have always found mass singing to be supremely emancipating activity, even more so when doing it in the freezing cold in front of riot piggies, the glare of blue neon cutting through the moonlight and the scent of burning flag hanging heavy in the air.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Will you also speak out against the police if they use unneccesary and excessive violence?



I have done so on many occasions.



_float_ said:


> Will you defend people's universal right to self defence?



People don't have a "universal" right to self defence. They have the right to defend themselves under very specific circumstances.



_float_ said:


> Or are you just chucking in politically-motivated and/or provocative comments on this and similar threads?



It's not politically motivated. If the law is important, uphold it. If violence is wrong, don't practice it. If you believe in democracy, act democratically rather than like a gang of thugs.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm very familiar with it, yes. Surely the problem there was that the police were breaking the law rather than upholding it?
> 
> I hardly see the connection between that and today's events at the embassy.
> 
> ...



Events like the Battle of The Beanfield aren't exactly unusual for your beloved plod you know. That's just one example of plod running wild, and with the direct connivance of the State as well.

As far as I'm concerned, and based on personal first hand experience of watching them at work, plod can become a arbitrary group of thugs just as easily as anyone else. Which is one of the many reasons why I have absolutely no time whatsoever for them, as a general rule.

And I would have applauded if they'd trashed the Israeli Embassy, since you asked. It would have been a perfect way to show the Israeli Government the depth of feeling that exists against the frankly medieval (and illegal under international law) collective punishments, State terrorism and virtual (if not actual) apartheid that exists in the Occupied Territories at this time.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. The law is all that stands between you and any arbitrary group of thugs that want to make your life a misery, and that sometimes includes some police.


Maybe in theory it is, but in real life actual physical self-defence will help you avoid injury rather than invoking legal texts.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Events like the Battle of The Beanfield aren't exactly unusual for your beloved plod you know. That's just one example of plod running wild, and with the direct connivance of the State as well.



I'm well aware that the generally good record of the police is tarnished by various relatively rare excesses.



Bakunin said:


> As far as I'm concerned, and based on personal first hand experience of watching them at work, plod can become a arbitrary group of thugs just as easily as anyone else. Which is one of the many reasons why I have absolutely no time whatsoever for them, as a general rule.



In which case you have little grounds to oppose their lawbreaking except as an incredibly cynical tactic.

How about actually supporting the rule of law, for the police as well as everyone else?



Bakunin said:


> And I would have applauded if they'd trashed the Israeli Embassy, since you asked.



Because we all know that two wrongs make things right and that the best way to bring about peace is to escalate the level of violence.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Maybe in theory it is, but in real life actual physical self-defence will help you avoid injury rather than invoking legal texts.



Throwing things at the police and charging their lines is a pretty bizarre way of performing self-defence, and almost certainly wouldn't accord with any legal concept of the term.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> No, I wasn't there. Your point is what?


My point is that you are making your mind up about events that you didn't witness and which you have hardly any information.

I am guessing that *some* of the police actions were justified, but that maybe they also used excessive and unneccessary force as well.

I am guessing that *some* of the protestors were acting 100% within the law, but that others were going beyond it.

What I am sure about is that your puffed up pontificating about - and scolding of protestors - is based on not very much hard evidence at all, and seems like you are just point scoring for political or amusement purposes rather than trying to have a grown up and honest discussion.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I have done so on many occasions.


Have you ever done so on u75?

Done so recently?

Or are you yet another youthful radical who has turned into sour, disillusioned, reactionary middle-aged grump?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

I did not witness a single occurance of the protesters charging the police, we pushed down the barriers to get closer to the embassy and the police backed off, they had big sticks and we were not making it our business to run towards them!! And in the end they came through on horses!


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> My point is that you are making your mind up about events that you didn't witness and which you have hardly any information.



Sorry, I only have one account of unlawful violence by the free admission of one of the protesters to work from. 

Perhaps someone would like to post something from the police's perspective.



_float_ said:


> I am guessing that *some* of the police actions were justified, but that maybe they also used excessive and unneccessary force as well.



If violence bothers you, the key surely is not to give them any excuse.



_float_ said:


> I am guessing that *some* of the protestors were acting 100% within the law, but that others were going beyond it.



I'm sure that the protesters that didn't offer violence (no doubt there were many) stayed within the law but those that were violent didn't. It would be very hard to claim self defence in this situation for throwing missiles at the police. Hardly a defensive action.



_float_ said:


> What I am sure about is that your puffed up pontificating about - and scolding of protestors - is based on not very much hard evidence at all, and seems like you are just point scoring for political or amusement purposes rather than trying to have a grown up and honest discussion.



I'm just fed up with the violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be advancing the cause of peace and international law.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm well aware that the generally good record of the police is tarnished by various relatively rare excesses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Relatively rare, my arse. Excesses are perfectly common in so-called 'public order' policing, as they were at Kingsnorth in August. It's also perfectly common for plod to tell the press and public barefaced lies in order to try and justify such excesses.

I have every right to oppose what's being perpetrated by the Israeli Government and armed forces. The UN certainly isn't too happy about the Israeli 'excesses' in the Occupied Territories, but as that's a largely toothless organisation that often leaves it to those who care to try and defend the Palestinians and support them as best we can.

And I support justice, not that corrupt institution you call 'the law'. It's the corrupt institution you call 'the law' that exists to protect political and corporate interests, not those of ordinary people. When plod decide to have a moment without arch hypocrisy and actually obey the laws they are supposed to enforce, then I might give them house room. Until then, no chance.

If the Israeli Embassy had been wrecked, then it would have been headline news around the world. Nobody could have ignored a statement like that and I say it would have been a statement worth making.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> People don't have a "universal" right to self defence. They have the right to defend themselves under very specific circumstances.


OK professor brainbox...

...please tell us in what circumstances people do *not* have a right to self defence.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> If the law is important, uphold it. If violence is wrong, don't practice it. If you believe in democracy, act democratically rather than like a gang of thugs.


This is fatuous, meaningless verbiage:

"law" in general may be important (eg laws against rape and murder) but other laws may be unjust (eg apartheid). Arguing that to value *any* law you must support *all* laws is a nonsensical argument.

"violence" may be wrong, but again to argue that you must therefore be a pacifist in all situations is nonsensical.

Ditto "democracy".

You are either trolling or you are a moron, because you are making no effort whatsoever to set forward any intelligent statements.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> OK professor brainbox...
> 
> ...please tell us in what circumstances people do *not* have a right to self defence.



To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.

Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.

"Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Relatively rare, my arse. Excesses are perfectly common in so-called 'public order' policing, as they were at Kingsnorth in August. It's also perfectly common for plod to tell the press and public barefaced lies in order to try and justify such excesses.
> 
> I have every right to oppose what's being perpetrated by the Israeli Government and armed forces. The UN certainly isn't too happy about the Israeli 'excesses' in the Occupied Territories, but as that's a largely toothless organisation that often leaves it to those who care to try and defend the Palestinians and support them as best we can.
> 
> ...



good post - and i don't nornmally support violence on demos. What would have been awesome would be if protesters occupied the Israeli Embassy and replaced the Israeli flag with a Palestinian one


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.
> 
> Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.
> 
> "Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.



So it's perfectly OK for plod to ride through a densely packed mass of people on their horses, whacking them over the head with clubs as they go and then administer further beatings, joint locks and chokeholds to those who are either unable or unwilling to flee, is it?

Fuck that for a laugh. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If plod want to be violent and politically motivated thugs, then why should they remain free of some payback for that?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> "law" in general may be important (eg laws against rape and murder) but other laws may be unjust (eg apartheid). Arguing that value *any* law you must support *all* laws is a nonsensical argument.



And in this particular case do you think it justified to allow an assault on a foreign embassy in a city far distant from a conflict between third parties?



_float_ said:


> "violence" may be wrong, but again to argue that you must therefore be a pacifist in all situations is nonsensical.



I'd agree with that. Violence is sometimes necessary. I can think of no situation in this country at present where someone would be justified to use unlawful violence. Can you?



_float_ said:


> Ditto "democracy".
> 
> You are either trolling or you are a moron, because you are making no effort whatsoever to set forward any intelligent statements.



Sorry, I should have couched all these terms with numerous caveats about marginal extreme cases.

I'll try harder in future to be more pedantic.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.
> 
> Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.
> 
> "Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.



The ethical Good does not reside with the agents of state who are protecting the property (rented) of the murderers of innocents in Gaza. We the protesters through our mass endeavour actualise the ethical Good against imperialist and capitalistic ideology, our cause is above any contingent state law, it is the very stuff of radical democracy.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> So it's perfectly OK for plod to ride through a densely packed mass of people on their horses, whacking them over the head with clubs as they go and then administer further beatings, joint locks and chokeholds to those who are either unable or unwilling to flee, is it?



You'd have to take each case on its merits but on the face of it and in the circumstances of today's demo, yes.



Bakunin said:


> F- that for a laugh. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If plod want to be violent and politically motivated thugs, then why should they remain free of some payback for that?



I expect the police would defend any embassy similarly. I can see no political motivation here.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

kavenism said:


> The ethical Good does not reside with the agents of state who are protecting the property (rented) of the murderers of innocents in Gaza. We the protesters through our mass endeavour actualise the ethical Good against imperialist and capitalistic ideology, our cause is above any contingent state law, it is the very stuff of radical democracy.



That's a very moving statement. Shame you can't see you've already become the thing you oppose.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm just fed up with the violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be advancing the cause of peace and international law.


Fine, and you seem to be against "violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be policing London".

Have you got any messages for the other protestors who were non-violent?

Have you got any messages for the police who used excessive and unneccesary force?

What about a message for protestors who aren't hypocrites because they have never made a statement about pacifism or law - who are just pissed off about a specific action and were expressing this pissed-off-ness? 

You seem to be making some very sweeping assumptions about all the people who were involved in the demonstrations today - about what they actually did today and about what they think and believe generally.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> That's a very moving statement. Shame you can't see you've already become the thing you oppose.



Perhaps you could try a proper argument to support that statement?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Have you got any messages for the other protestors who were non-violent?



No more so than I have for anyone else that went about their lawful business today, shopping, gardening, attending church, whatever.



_float_ said:


> Have you got any messages for the police who used excessive and unneccesary force?



You presume that any of them did. I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was so.



_float_ said:


> What about a message for protestors who aren't hypocrites because they have never made a statement about pacifism or law - who are just p- off about a specific action and were expressing this p-off-ness?



Anyone that breaks the law and uses unlawful violence will meet my condemnation whether that's their manifesto or otherwise.



_float_ said:


> You seem to be making some very sweeping assumptions about all the people who were involved in the demonstrations today - about what they actually did today and about what they think and believe generally.



I'm grateful for the opportunity you've offered to put the record straight.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.
> 
> Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.
> 
> "Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.


You haven't provided any examples of a situation where someone doesn't have a right to self defence.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> You'd have to take each case on its merits but on the face of it and in the circumstances of today's demo, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I expect the police would defend any embassy similarly. I can see no political motivation here.



You are scum, scum.

You're utterly blind, then, if you can't see the political motivation behind thise action. And I'll say it again, this action would have been even better if it had ended with a trashed Israeli Embassy with a Palestinian flag hanging from it.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You haven't provided any examples of a situation where someone doesn't have a right to self defence.



I think I've supplied sufficient information for an intelligent person to be able to discriminate between lawful and unlawful self-defence.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> You are scum, scum.



And you are incredibly rude.



Bakunin said:


> You're utterly blind, then, if you can't see the political motivation behind thise action. And I'll say it again, this action would have been even better if it had ended with a trashed Israeli Embassy with a Palestinian flag hanging from it.



And had the police allowed this to happen, nothing could have been a clearer indication of political partiality on their part.

As it happened, the police upheld the law and defended the embassy as they are required to do with anyone else's lives and property. 

I take it you do realise the building is occupied?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> And in this particular case do you think it justified to allow an assault on a foreign embassy in a city far distant from a conflict between third parties?


So when someone points out how utterly nonsensical your argument is, instead of trying to defend it you try and side track by asking an irrelevant question?

I am taking issue with the rubbish you are spouting. I haven't taken a position about Israel or their embassy.

It isn't that you are not being 'pedantic' enough - it is that you are making massive, sweeping generalisations and pontificating about "the law" when in fact your arguments are utterly pathetic and nonsensical.

Don't be more pedantic. Just grown up.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Have you ever done so on u75?
> 
> Done so recently?



I thought I just did in post #60 with respect to the battle of the beanfield.

As it's a historical case, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not labouring the point.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> So when someone points out how utterly nonsensical your argument is, instead of trying to defend it you try and side track by asking an irrelevant question?
> 
> I am taking issue with the rubbish you are spouting. I haven't taken a position about Israel or their embassy.
> 
> ...



I'm struggling to find a meaningful point here.

Would having different opinions help?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> You'd have to take each case on its merits but on the face of it and in the circumstances of today's demo, yes.


You are just being a trolling cunt now.

You pretend to be some intelligent "voice of reason" but you are just a miserable fucking troll.

And I'm not saying this because I am for or against Israel. It's because this is what you do in every fucking thread you post in on u75 - spewing out needlessly offensive, contrarian, smug, faux-intellectual gobshite rubbish, needling people to get a rise.

I haven't seen you post anything positive or worthwhile - everything I have seen of you is reactionary and getting at people, seeking an argument and looking to wind people up.

Why don't you do yourself and everyone else here a favour and fuck off?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

kavenism said:


> The ethical Good does not reside with the agents of state who are protecting the property (rented) of the murderers of innocents in Gaza. We the protesters through our mass endeavour actualise the ethical Good against imperialist and capitalistic ideology, our cause is above any contingent state law, it is the very stuff of radical democracy.



Let's try this one again.

You're a gang of self-righteous, self-appointed political thugs.

Is that any better?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> No more so than I have for anyone else that went about their lawful business today, shopping, gardening, attending church, whatever.


Yet about you just supported them getting batoned by horseback police?

Fuck off idiot.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You are just being a trolling c- now.
> 
> Etc. etc. etc.



You're welcome to put me on ignore if my posts offend you. Thus far you seem to have gained some satisfaction from debating the points I've raised.

Or perhaps there is another reason. Well?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm grateful for the opportunity you've offered to put the record straight.


No you are not "grateful". 

You are not sincere at all.

You stink of troll.

Fuck off.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Yet about you just supported them getting batoned by horseback police?



If they did, that's unfortunate.

I suspect, however, from experience of similar situations, that those looking to peacefully protest did exactly that, and weren't at the front pushing barriers, throwing missiles, burning flags, etc.



_float_ said:


> F- off idiot.



Sorry, I seem to have replied to your post by mistake.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I think I've supplied sufficient information for an intelligent person to be able to discriminate between lawful and unlawful self-defence.


No, you are a moronic cunt, who hasn't provided any information at all.

Fuck off.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> No, you are a moronic c-, who hasn't provided any information at all.



Perhaps you could take the trouble to read it a little more carefully. It's ok. There's plenty of time.

Oh, and do wash your mouth out. It's not very endearing.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> And you are incredibly rude.


Who is more rude:

Someone who trolls other people's threads looking for a fight and deliberately winds people up and posts smug, stupid garbage.

or

Someone who tells this person to fuck off.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

tbh, i do feel sorry for some of the staff working at the israeli embassy now ... imagine being some poor work experience kid having to answer phones


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> I thought I just did in post #60 with respect to the battle of the beanfield.
> 
> As it's a historical case, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not labouring the point.


So you haven't, have you?

Idiot.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Who is more rude:
> 
> Someone who trolls other people's threads looking for a fight and deliberately winds people up and posts smug, stupid garbage.
> 
> ...



The funny thing is, if you're right about the former, then you must think that I actually support the kind of unlawful, violent protest witnessed here today and oppose the police's action to protect the people and property of the Israeli Embassy.

Now, you don't honestly believe that, do you?

Who knows, perhaps I was actually there at the front, masked up in my shemagh, burning Star of David in one hand, half brick in the other?

It makes you think, doesn't it?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> You're a gang of self-righteous, self-appointed political thugs.


You are labelling everyone who went on the protest today as "thugs"?

You don't provide any evidence at all to back up your brainshite.

You don't deserve anyone answering you in any other way. You are not here for an honest debate, just to troll. Fuck off.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> You're welcome to put me on ignore if my posts offend you. Thus far you seem to have gained some satisfaction from debating the points I've raised.
> 
> Or perhaps there is another reason. Well?


I don't want to ignore you.

I am content to expose the shite you post here for as long as I feel it is worthwhile.

I would prefer it if you trolled somewhere else, or grew a brain however.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You are labelling everyone who went on the protest today as "thugs"?



I was addressing myself to that poster and his colleagues who has admitted his and their violent and unlawful actions, no-one else.

I'm sure everyone else here can see that quite clearly.

Perhaps it's time to take a break and come back in the morning when you're fresh.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 3, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> So it's perfectly OK for plod to ride through a densely packed mass of people on their horses, whacking them over the head with clubs as they go and then administer further beatings, joint locks and chokeholds to those who are either unable or unwilling to flee, is it?



Hiya champ - its probably a bit of an own goal to continuously use one example of police violence (against travellers of all people) as a case against the police in general. If you are asked for examples, then give them, but the point with the police is that they have come about at the behest of those in power to protect the status quo. Look back at their history, and that of the army, and that is what you will see - a group of people in the employ of the state ready to use violence to protect its' interests and carry out its' demands. So, if the interests of the state, and the status quo, are not good at all, then the police are not good at all. 

It is not individual cases of corruption or brutality that justify defying the police, just like it isn't particularly bad laws or extreme poverty that make it legitimate to defy the state. See, bad policing can be reformed, laws can be changed. You won't have a leg to stand on. I think its pretty widely accepted fact that the policing of the 80's *has* changed anyway, so you don't really have a leg to stand on. Today they are experts at containment rather than escalation. The miners at Orgreaves would not have been charged, today they'd probably never have got off their coaches or spent the day in small groups surrounded by a 3 deep police line, or in a designated protest zone away from the picket line.

As an anarchist your trying to explain why it is totally neccessary to go on the offensive against the state, not shout 'but they hit me first'.

*Bakunin.*


----------



## kavenism (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> Let's try this one again.
> 
> You're a gang of self-righteous, self-appointed political thugs.
> 
> Is that any better?



Nope, not an argument, just abuse.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> Oh, and do wash your mouth out. It's not very endearing.


I am not trying to endear myself to you, arsewipe.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

kavenism said:


> Nope, not an argument, just abuse.



I'm describing the situation as I see it.

Any reason why I shouldn't think of you as self-righteous, self-appointed political thugs? Your statement seemed to tick all the boxes quite handsomely.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> I am not trying to endear myself to you, a-.



Perhaps I would be more receptive to your arguments, such as they are, if you were.


----------



## tangentlama (Jan 3, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> tbh, i do feel sorry for some of the staff working at the israeli embassy now ... imagine being some poor work experience kid having to answer phones



surely this must be an easier job than being forcibly conscripted into the IDF at 18 for two to three years, when most other democracy's children are either at school, working, or at university. 

http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/content/israel


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> The funny thing is, if you're right about the former, then you must think that I actually support the kind of unlawful, violent protest witnessed here today and oppose the police's action to protect the people and property of the Israeli Embassy.
> 
> Now, you don't honestly believe that, do you?


No sorry your "logic" has lost me.

If you are a troll then you must believe <insert complicated legal/political concept here>?

Bullshit.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> tbh, i do feel sorry for some of the staff working at the israeli embassy now ... imagine being some poor work experience kid having to answer phones



At which pay grade does your sympathy end and your desire to see people scared out of their wits if not actually attacked begin?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> Perhaps it's time to take a break and come back in the morning when you're fresh.


Perhaps. Or maybe you should fuck off?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> No sorry your "logic" has lost me.



That much is evident.

If it puts your mind at rest, I am genuinely incensed at the behaviour of some of the protesters at this demonstration and at one poster here who seems to be proud of their violence and lawbreaking.

Now, how about getting back to the issues and away from the personalities?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> At which pay grade does your sympathy end and your desire to see people scared out of their wits if not actually attacked begin?



I don't think there is one - i think tho frogwoman is sympathetic, she feels that the people in the Embassy would do well to realise how strongly the majority of the world felt about their employers actions.

And as for attacked - how likely do you think that is? You think the people in the embassy (had the police and armed guards evaporated) were in danger of being attacked by the crowd?


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> I don't think there is one - i think tho frogwoman is sympathetic, she feels that the people in the Embassy would do well to realise how strongly the majority of the world felt about their employers actions.



Which is a reasonable aim, but surely one that would have been achievable (if not better achieved) without the kind of mayhem that occurred today?



Taxamo Welf said:


> And as for attacked - how likely do you think that is? You think the people in the embassy (had the police and armed guards evaporated) were in danger of being attacked by the crowd?



You seem to be implying that rather than protecting the embassy, the police were in a sense protecting the protesters from the consequences of breaching the embassy's perimeter. I take your point.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> Perhaps I would be more receptive to your arguments, such as they are, if you were.


You are not receptive to argument or logic from anyone. You are a troll. You are not here to have honest debate, just to wind people up with your negative sneery comments and faux-expert posturing. You never set out any coherent beliefs or ideas of your own, just meaningless soundbites such as "respect the law". You never explain your sweeping generalisations in any depth. You are not interested in any kind of normal give-and-take of real debate. Your agenda is clear even if you don't admit it to yourself - you are here on u75 with an axe to grind but nothing to actually say for yourself. Which is why you simply troll other people's threads like some parasitic bottom-feeder.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> If it puts your mind at rest, I am genuinely incensed at the behaviour of some of the protesters at this demonstration and at one poster here who seems to be proud of their violence and lawbreaking.



1) what violence? Have there been any injuries reported?

2) What is so scared about the law? Even as someone who on the whole wnats things to stay as they are it seems a bit ridiculous to be incensed by 'lawbreaking' in general. Laws change all the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> At which pay grade does your sympathy end and your desire to see people scared out of their wits if not actually attacked begin?



 I don't want to see people attacked mate... i feel sorry for the poor bastards (apart from that cunt ron prosor and the various press spokespeople) ... it can't be easy being an israeli living overseas at the moment at all. 

if its like most other embassies, it will mostly deal with passports and visas etc and i don't want to see ordinary people attacked or hurt. 

however, a strong message does need to be sent to israel that its behaviour is unacceptable and an action like this is the perfect way to do it.


----------



## untethered (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You are not receptive to argument or logic from anyone. You are a troll. Tou are not here to have honest debate, just to wind people up with your negative sneery comments and faux-expert posturing. You never set out any coherent beliefs or ideas of your own, just meaningless soundbites such as "respect the law". You never explain your sweeping generalisations in any depth. You are not interested in any kind of normal give-and-take of real debate. Your agenda is clear even if you don't admit it to yourself - you are here on u75 with an axe to grind but nothing to actually say for yourself. Which is why you simply troll other people's threads like some parasitic bottom-feeder.



You can't please everyone all the time. However, I would like to think that you're bright enough to gain some measure of value from my contributions on this thread when you come back later and review them with fresh eyes and a calmer demeanour.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 3, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You are just being a trolling cunt now. You pretend to be some intelligent "voice of reason" but you are just a miserable fucking troll. And I'm not saying this because I am for or against Israel. It's because this is what you do in every fucking thread you post in on u75 - spewing out needlessly offensive, contrarian, smug, faux-intellectual gobshite rubbish, needling people to get a rise. I haven't seen you post anything positive or worthwhile - everything I have seen of you is reactionary and getting at people, seeking an argument and looking to wind people up. Why don't you do yourself and everyone else here a favour and fuck off?



Yes, how dare you not agree with the line? Troll!!!!


----------



## _float_ (Jan 3, 2009)

untethered said:


> If it puts your mind at rest, I am genuinely incensed at the behaviour of some of the protesters at this demonstration and at one poster here who seems to be proud of their violence and lawbreaking.


I don't believe you are "genuinely incensed" - I think you you have a more general axe to grind and you just go looking for an 'example' to lay into.

Maybe you are "incensed" in a general sense - which would explain why you grind your axe by trolling threads which get your grumpy-persona's back up. 


> Now, how about getting back to the issues and away from the personalities?


Hmm. Original post:





brix said:


> Hands Off Gaza: Stop the Bombing: Free Palestine
> Assemble 12:30pm Embankment, WC2
> 
> Is anyone else going to this?


So this thread is for people interested in supporting this demo.

Yeah, OK. Let's get back to this issues shall we?

You stop trolling and posting shite and I stop calling you out about it, OK?


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> ....other people's threads ?


 

I thought this was a community.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> 1) what violence? Have there been any injuries reported?



I'm just going by first-hand accounts here and press reports. Would you like me to ring round the hospitals and the LAS press office?



Taxamo Welf said:


> 2) What is so sacred about the law? Even as someone who on the whole wnats things to stay as they are it seems a bit ridiculous to be incensed by 'lawbreaking' in general. Laws change all the time.



Of course laws change all the time, and sadly, not always for the better!

Law isn't sacred. It is intrinsically imperfect and imperfectible. Only a utopian would believe otherwise.

However, it's the best we've got. Society is under almost all circumstances best served by maintaining the law and keeping good order. We are fortunate to have a democracy in this country that allows significant input into the political process by individuals and civil society groups. Let's use the process and seek to strengthen it, rather than undermine it the second we don't get our own way.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> The funny thing is, if you're right about the former, then you must think that I actually support the kind of unlawful, violent protest witnessed here today and oppose the police's action to protect the people and property of the Israeli Embassy.
> 
> Now, you don't honestly believe that, do you?
> 
> ...



If you had been you'd have called it a keffiyah, not a shemagh.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2009)

"mayhem"? as far as i can tell the police gave out as good as they got to say the fucking least. 

how many protests have there been over the actions of israel over the years? and how many of them ahve been effective in stopping its atrocities? 

Is it not time for something different? 

an occupied (ho ho) israeli embassy with a palestinian flag flying from it would be front page news all over the world.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Yes, how dare you not agree with the line? Troll!!!!


Agree with "the line"? 

Contrarian = a person who takes an opposing view for the hell of it, not out of any actual principles or beliefs.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Which is a reasonable aim, but surely one that would have been achievable (if not better achieved) without the kind of mayhem that occurred today?


No, not really. Israeli militarism has been repeatedly condemned by every body a liberal would want it to go through, it has made no difference. It can survive with even less support and continue its expansionist policies in the West Bank and Gaza. in terms of civil society there have been bigger protests before that have had no effect, and in general big protests have no effect. They can demonstrate the numbers of people who believe something, but unless they demonstrate that those people will act, they have no effect.

As the poster termed 'Bakunin' has pointed out, it would be far better if the embassies were trashed, disrupted or occupied. There must be some representation of the awarness there is of Isreali militarism. If you are aware of a crime against humanity, then just saying you disapprove seems to be totally misleading - suggesting it is a matter of opinon, a pub argument - not a crime against humanity.



> You seem to be implying that rather than protecting the embassy, the police were in a sense protecting the protesters from the consequences of breaching the embassy's perimeter.


No i'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that had the guards and riot police not been there, the embassy staff would have left, and if they had not left, i do not think they would have been hurt. 

The police were there to protect the status quo, to make sure people don't start taking matters into their own hands, _getting bright ideas_ - you know.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> I don't believe you are "genuinely incensed" - I think you you have a more general axe to grind and you just go looking for an 'example' to lay into.



I came on here when Mrs Untethered tired of hearing about it. Not that she was particularly happy about the situation either, mind.

But thanks for your psychological insights and calling me a liar.



_float_ said:


> So this thread is for people interested in supporting this demo.



I'm terribly sorry. I thought it had evolved into a general discussion about the demonstration (given that it's now happened) and matters arising from it.

Shall I immediately unsubscribe and start a thread exclusively for people unhappy about the protesters' violence directed towards the police and the embassy?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> I thought this was a community.


"other people's threads" = threads started by someone else to discuss a topic of their choosing with other people who are also interested and want to make a valid contribution.

wrecking other people's threads = posting on them to pick fights, be insulting, wind people up, disrupt debate, be an fuckwit and without any real interest in the topic or any real willingness to have a genuine debate.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> If you had been you'd have called it a keffiyah, not a shemagh.



There goes my promising career as an agent provocateur!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> "mayhem"? as far as i can tell the police gave out as good as they got to say the fucking least.



to contain a potentially riotous crowd the police *must* have given *more* than they got. This is just common sense. If they gave less, they'd have lost.

At a guess i'd say they were pushed, and drew batons - the next people to try and get past risked a spanking. Stuff might have got thrown, but to get past and to the embassy, the crowd would have needed to be willing to hit the police harder with something bigger. They weren't. This is how most public order incidents end.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Agree with "the line"?
> 
> Contrarian = a person who takes an opposing view for the hell of it, not out of any actual principles or beliefs.



I'm pretty sure s/he means it. 

And there is a line. You're palpably on one side or the other - no nuance or dissension allowed. I do think your reaction to untethered's point of view is a bit too aggressive. 

This thread doesn't belong to one side or another, either of the "Israel justified/unjustified" argument or the "right/wrong to use violence in a vain attempt to occupy the embassy" debate.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm just going by first-hand accounts here and press reports. Would you like me to ring round the hospitals and the LAS press office?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I contest this is not a democracy. There is a very limited input the public are allowed to give the state the legitimacy of doing what it wants be yelling 'well its a democracy' as it does it.

There are far more important factors at play in controlling society than political parties anyway, and political parties are all you are allowed to choose.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2009)

yeah. 

the protests by the israeli embassies around the world ARE unsettling them though ... Israel's increasingly desperate PR campaign is proof of this ...


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> if its like most other embassies, it will mostly deal with passports and visas etc and i don't want to see ordinary people attacked or hurt.
> 
> however, a strong message does need to be sent to israel that its behaviour is unacceptable and an action like this is the perfect way to do it.



I hate to be pedantic, but this hardly seems "perfect" at all.

Firstly, you accept that there will inevitably be a fair amount of collateral damage, whether that be innocent police officers injured, passers-by frightened or (by your account) junior embassy staff intimidated.

Secondly, there's no evidence that this kind of protest will be any more effective than any other.

Put yourself in the ambassador's shoes, looking out the window. Do you really think he's being persuaded to the Palestinian cause or the cause of peace (pretty hard to tell which one is being advocated, to be honest)?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Would you like me to ring round the hospitals and the LAS press office?


Yes, go and do some research.

At least list some facts.

Maybe a single link with some hard information in it to back up your claims?

I am not going to hold me breath. You are not here to debate, just to wind people up. You are not going to produce any evidence.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> "other people's threads" = threads started by someone else to discuss a topic of their choosing with other people who are also interested and want to make a valid contribution.



And here was me thinking it was a debate on a controversial topic open to all, not a Palestinian partisans' love-in.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2009)

i have been in the same room as the israeli ambassador and he is a loathsome creature. it's not him that needs to be convinced - or any israeli ambassador. someone working for that high a position is't going to be convinced by looking at a demo.

i agree that in terms of gaining the sympathy of the embassy staff it will be counterproductive. however, they do need to know what the world thinks of their government's actions.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Shall I immediately unsubscribe and start a thread exclusively for people unhappy about the protesters' violence directed towards the police and the embassy?


Produce some evidence.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> I hate to be pedantic, but this hardly seems "perfect" at all.
> 
> Firstly, you accept that there will inevitably be a fair amount of collateral damage, whether that be innocent police officers injured, passers-by frightened or (by your account) junior embassy staff intimidated.
> 
> ...


NO!

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT WE WERE TRYING TO *CONVINCE* THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR THAT PEACE IS A BETTER OPTION?! WE *ARE TRYING TO SCARE HIM* EVEN THE MAIN MARCH WAS. 

Well spotted.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> NO!
> 
> DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT WE WERE TRYING TO *CONVINCE* THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR THAT PEACE IS A BETTER OPTION?! WE *ARE TRYING TO SCARE HIM* EVEN THE MAIN MARCH WAS.
> 
> Well spotted.



Do you think you succeeded?

Before you reply, hit the long key on the left-hand end of your keyboard above the shift key marked "Caps Lock".


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Produce some evidence.



I direct you to the self-satisfied first-hand account of the demonstration given earlier by a poster on this thread.

Or are they trolling too?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Do you think you succeeded?
> 
> Before you reply, hit the long key on the left-hand end of your keyboard above the shift key marked "Caps Lock".



FWIW i used shift.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

do i think the israeli ambassador would be scared by his embassy being sacked?

CAN I PHONE  FUCKING FRIEND?

YES.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> i agree that in terms of gaining the sympathy of the embassy staff it will be counterproductive. however, they do need to know what the world thinks of their government's actions.



Well I'm sure the protesters have succeeded in that aim.

Do you think they would have been any less successful had they actually:

1. acted peacefully and within the law?

2. not defamed symbols of the Israeli state?

3. not in part taken the side of the Palestinians?


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> FWIW i used shift.



Crumbs.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Well I'm sure the protesters have succeeded in that aim.
> 
> Do you think they would have been any less successful had they actually:
> 
> ...



yes

yes

yes


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Crumbs.



blimey.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> And there is a line. You're palpably on one side or the other - no nuance or dissension allowed. I do think your reaction to untethered's point of view is a bit too aggressive.


What is this "line" you are talking about?

Too aggressive? I think it is well-deserved due to their deliberate idiocy and wind-ups and refusal to enter honest debate.





> This thread doesn't belong to one side or another, either of the "Israel justified/unjustified" argument or the "right/wrong to use violence in a vain attempt to occupy the embassy" debate.


It is a thread relating to an action/event. If someone wants to make valid and honest criticism then that would be appropriate. Making up a load of shite and posting here to wind people up and get a rise out of them is not.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> good post - and i don't normally support violence on demos. What would have been awesome would be if protesters occupied the Israeli Embassy and replaced the Israeli flag with a Palestinian one



But you will accept that this could not have been achieved without considerable violence, and probably considerable loss of life. It might be ironic, but would you be prepared to justify these killings for a  cool outcome?

I think people involved in protests in such circumstances generally know that the Metropolitan Police are not passive in such circumstances - although of course it did come as a genuine surprise to the Countryside Alliance when they tried it on a few years ago. Everyone else should be expected to know what to expect. 

The aggression displayed by the police was predictable in response to the situation, they will have assessed the flinging of sticks at them as the start of something, and I think their response was justified in deterring anyone up at the front considering taking the risk.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> I contest this is not a democracy. There is a very limited input the public are allowed to give the state the legitimacy of doing what it wants be yelling 'well its a democracy' as it does it.
> 
> There are far more important factors at play in controlling society than political parties anyway, and political parties are all you are allowed to choose.



If this isn't a democracy, find me one.

No, it's not perfect. The party system isn't perfect. However, it's pretty good compared with the alternatives. There are many ways to influence public policy outside formal politics, elections and political parties, as I'm sure you're aware.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> And here was me thinking it was a debate on a controversial topic open to all, not a Palestinian partisans' love-in.


I didn't say it was. That you think I did marks you out either as an idiot or someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what is said for the sake of being contrary.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> If someone wants to make valid and honest criticism then that would be appropriate.



Please explain how saying that the violence directed by protesters against the police isn't a valid and honest criticism. You clearly don't agree, but even so.

Are all statements with which you disagree either invalid or dishonest?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> I direct you to the self-satisfied first-hand account of the demonstration given earlier by a poster on this thread.


That is your evidence?


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> What is this "line" you are talking about?


The line can be described as "Israel bad, violence against British cops justified". 


_float_ said:


> Too aggressive? I think it is well-deserved due to their deliberate idiocy and wind-ups and refusal to enter honest debate.It is a thread relating to an action/event. If someone wants to make valid and honest criticism then that would be appropriate. Making up a load of shite and posting here to wind people up and get a rise out of them is not.


Most other people aren't getting wound up. you should just ignore him/her.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Please explain...


No sorry.

You don't explain anything when asked to.

You don't provide any evidence to back up your rubbish.

You are not here for an honest debate.

Go dribble over someone else, shit-for-brains.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> That is your evidence?



Maybe you've got a point. Much of it was probably contrived for the sake of effect.

I suspect the poster actually pulled out a picnic rug and offered sandwiches to the police, informed the embassy staff that they respected their views but begged to disagree and went home to write a firm letter to their MP.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> No sorry.
> 
> You don't explain anything when asked to.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, that simply won't do.

You've made some pretty serious allegations about my good faith and true political views. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.

Please don't continue to disrupt the meaningful discussion on this thread with your bizarre personal attacks.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> I'm sorry, that simply won't do.


Why not?


> You've made some pretty serious allegations about my good faith and true political views. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.


What allegations? What are you going to do if I don't?


> Please don't continue to disrupt the meaningful discussion on this thread with your bizarre personal attacks.


Or what?


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Such as?



Don't play any more stupid than comes naturally.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> Don't play any more stupid than comes naturally.


Why not?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered, you seem upset?


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Why not?



It's a fair point.

Please do continue enhancing your natural stupidity with contrived stupidity.

But do it elsewhere, eh?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> If Martians landed and started disintegrating millions of humans with their death rays the SWP would march from Embankment to Trafalgar Square about it.


You've made some pretty serious allegations about the SWP here. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> But do it elsewhere, eh?


Why?


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> You've made some pretty serious allegations about the SWP here. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.



I would like to submit in evidence reports of every SWP demonstration since their inception and character witness statements from everyone who's ever purchased a copy of _Socialist Worker_.

The only effective strategy against the SWP is to erase Embankment Station and Trafalgar Square from the map.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> I think people involved in protests in such circumstances generally know that the Metropolitan Police are not passive in such circumstances - although of course it did come as a genuine surprise to the Countryside Alliance when they tried it on a few years ago. Everyone else should be expected to know what to expect.



Neither the CA march or this demo were run of the mill affairs. The CA were in Parliament Square trying to force entry to Parliament. This demo was trying to force entry to the embassy.

The consequences of either coming to pass would be extremely serious. The police aren't going to sit back and let it happen.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> You're a gang of self-righteous, self-appointed political thugs.


Some more pretty serious allegations about people here. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Some more pretty serious allegations about people here. It's time for you to back them up or withdraw them.



Try addressing your own responsibilities before appointing yourself spokesman for anyone else.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

Perhaps it's time to take a break and come back in the morning when you're fresh?


----------



## untethered (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Perhaps it's time to take a break and come back in the morning when you're fresh?



An excellent idea.

Night night.


----------



## winjer (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Hiya champ - its probably a bit of an own goal to continuously use one example of police violence (against travellers of all people) as a case against the police in general.


He appears to be talking about today, I'm not sure there even were horses used at the beanfield. Why do you say "travellers of all people"?



> I think its pretty widely accepted fact that the policing of the 80's *has* changed anyway, so you don't really have a leg to stand on. Today they are experts at containment rather than escalation.


Not really, their tactics today were straight out of the Tactical Options manual and could have been used at any point in the last 25 years, the major difference is simply that their numerical advantage is now usually much greater.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

barney_pig said:


> perhaps you should pay attention
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should learn to fucking read:


> Hamas has declared itself to be a terrorist organisation


Now where the fuck has Hamas ever "declared itself to be a terrorist organisation"?


----------



## brix (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> I didn't say it was. That you think I did marks you out either as an idiot or *someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what is said for the sake of being contrary*.



This is it exactly.  Well it's for the sake of being contrary AND to get a rise.  Ignore him.  He's just a nasty little troll.


----------



## brix (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> *Please don't continue to disrupt the meaningful discussion on this thread *with your bizarre personal attacks.



Oh the IRONY!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2009)

Zachor said:


> Fucking spot on.
> 
> I wonder if the 'go back to the ovens' crew will be on this demo?  Like they were in Fort Lauderdale recently.  Some of the Pro-Pal activists are the nicest people you could ever wish to meet on a secure mental health ward.  Not sure they should be allowed out on their own or permitted sharp objects though.



Are you Mark Regev?


----------



## sonny61 (Jan 4, 2009)

kavenism said:


> the crowd was already a couple of thousand strong, loads of banners and *several Israeli flags were burnt.* It was already pretty aggressive with a coffee shop being taken over  Some sticks (the utterly flimsy ones from banners) were thrown over the police lines and they responded with baton charges at the front rows of protesters. At around 18:00 we broke through the front barriers and pushed the pigs back to either side although they still had their second line and kept us from getting right to the gate of the embassy. *More flags were burnt*, people climbed up the buildings opposite the embassy and *we exchanged missiles with the police batons.  *
> I left at about 20:00 with the police becoming ever more aggressive but people still determined to chant and resist the police lines. There will be more of this. Resistance against *the murdering filth of Israel* must not stop until Gaza is free, if we need to face the pigs batons every day till then then so be it.



I see your point, fancy the police getting angry. Whats wrong with them? A certain section of the crowd try to break through the lines to get at the Israelis, and the police push them back! When some of the crowd throw objects at the police, the police get angry!
I mean, come on, just because a mob was burning Israeli flags and chanting death to Israel, the Old Bill stops them getting into the Embassy!

What the police should have done is guided the mob into the Embassy, helping them take over the Embassy and take the staff hostage. The Jews could have been separated from the other staff and put into another room, just in case anyone fancied working of their aggression with a bit of Jew kicking.
Honestly, it's PC gone mad by the police!

BTW, I support the right of Hamas to resist the Israeli army. But some, and I do mean some, who took part in the demo yesterday, were anti semitic, and would have harmed the Jewish members of staff in the Embassy.
So, well done to the police for stopping this.
If the police stepped over the mark with some well meaning people on the demo, they should blame those who were intent on violent confrontation with the police.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I support the right of Hamas to resist the Israeli army...blame those who were intent on violent confrontation with the police.


What do you think Hamas do?  Perhaps you were under the impression that they dress up as clowns and tit about being a slightly irritating presence on demos?

Moron


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

Anyway, if you confront the police, they will hit you, anybody who's shocked by this almost deserves to be knocked upside the head a few times.

I have no problem with taking on the police, but to act shocked when they respond with violence strikes me as mind blowingly dishonest.  If you want to start a ruck, you have to be willing to risk getting hurt.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> What would have been awesome would be if protesters occupied the Israeli Embassy and replaced the Israeli flag with a Palestinian one


What's in a flag?


----------



## bingiman (Jan 4, 2009)

If you are sheltering in Gaza trying to avoid the bombs I would imagine you would be glad that some people around the world are aware of your plight and are demonstrating on your behalf.  

It is 'symbolic' resistance and at this time is the only type of resistance that is possible, whether you are faced by the ranks of the Met or the IDF.  

Despite that protest is still important and I would encourage everyone to ignore the trolls and turn up at future demonstrations outside the embassy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2009)

bingiman said:


> If you are sheltering in Gaza trying to avoid the bombs I would imagine you would be glad that some people around the world are aware of your plight and are demonstrating on your behalf.
> 
> It is 'symbolic' resistance and at this time is the only type of resistance that is possible, whether you are faced by the ranks of the Met or the IDF.
> 
> Despite that protest is still important and I would encourage everyone to ignore the trolls and turn up at future demonstrations outside the embassy.



Hear hear!


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't understand though why they give Galloway a platform at events like this. Tony Benn deserves better fellow speakers then that tit.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 4, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> I don't understand though why they give Galloway a platform at events like this. Tony Benn deserves better fellow speakers then that tit.



Sadly you are right.  Any event that has Galloway's fingerprints on it devalues it to me and many others.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 4, 2009)

nino_savatte said:


> Are you Mark Regev?



Not today.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

winjer said:


> He appears to be talking about today, I'm not sure there even were horses used at the beanfield.


no, he was repeatedly talking about the beanfield.



> Why do you say "travellers of all people"?



If the Beanfield is your primary example of the police being inexorably corrupted then its a poor one as it is police violence against a marginalised section of society that in many people eyes, live outside of society anyway; i'd pick something more generalised like Southall, Wapping, Orgreaves, and the Poll Tax Riot. As i say, i wouldn't argue it around liberal concepts of 'police violence' anyway; there is no _good_ policing if the status quo itself is violent - which poverty, war, and alienation definitely are.



> Not really, their tactics today were straight out of the Tactical Options manual and could have been used at any point in the last 25 years, the major difference is simply that their numerical advantage is now usually much greater.


I really don't know about that. The police have been heavily reigned in from the days when they used offensive action first - like in the Poll Tax Riot. Baton Charges and so on are still part of the repertoire, but the new and so far very successful approach is containment - i.e. mayday 2001 and 2002, fairfood coaches and pretty much every political event since the late 90's.
I think the police like the new tactics anyway, much better PR.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I see your point, fancy the police getting angry. Whats wrong with them? A certain section of the crowd try to break through the lines to get at the Israelis, and the police push them back! When some of the crowd throw objects at the police, the police get angry!
> I mean, come on, just because a mob was burning Israeli flags and chanting death to Israel, the Old Bill stops them getting into the Embassy!
> 
> What the police should have done is guided the mob into the Embassy, helping them take over the Embassy and take the staff hostage. The Jews could have been separated from the other staff and put into another room, just in case anyone fancied working of their aggression with a bit of Jew kicking.
> ...



Mate, whats with 'the jews' thing? Who is talking about fucking Jews? There were israeli jews in the crowd who wanted to storm the embassy. There have been jews on all the demonstrations.

You're off your head. If you want to say that the police were right to stop the embassy getting stormed, fine. Say that. Why are you trying to play this like it was some attempt at kristalnacht 09?


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Anyway, if you confront the police, they will hit you, anybody who's shocked by this almost deserves to be knocked upside the head a few times.


Are you saying that the crowd started "confronting" the police in the tunnel near Hyde Park Corner?  


> ...Organisers were preparing to make an official complaint to Scotland Yard after claiming that riot police charged into protesters.
> 
> Eyewitnesses claimed a number of people, including children, were thrown to the ground during a clash in an underpass at Hyde Park at the end of the demonstration.
> 
> ...


 Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/israel-gaza-protest-london


> Later on in the march there were chaotic scenes when protesters entered an underpass in Piccadilly. According to eyewitness reports, police in riot gear began hitting and stamping on protesters, leaving several wounded with head injuries.


 Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5439500.ece

Do you think that the shocked children deserved to be "knocked upside the head a few times" as well?


----------



## ajdown (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Do you think that the shocked children deserved to be "knocked upside the head a few times" as well?



I'd say it was pretty irresponsible parenting to take kids on a protest in the first place, let alone one that's quite likely to turn nasty.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> Do you think that the shocked children deserved to be "knocked upside the head a few times" as well?


Oh fuck off 

Rather than making me out to be a heartless bastard who's in favour of beating the poor shocked little kiddies, maybe you could engage with the substance of my post and leave the literal meaning of obviously facetious comments to one side?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I'd say it was pretty irresponsible parenting to take kids on a protest in the first place


My parents used to take me on protests all the time and it never did me no harm


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I'd say it was pretty irresponsible parenting to take kids on a protest in the first place, let alone one that's quite likely to turn nasty.


So if the police deliberately cordon off and then attack a crowd including parents with children, you blame the parents for being there in the first place?

Maybe you'd like to just go the whole hog and blame any protestor who gets attacked for being out in a public place in the first place.

Maybe your philosophy is that people don't have a right to protest in public and should stay at home, otherwise they face being attacked on sight by police?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> I don't understand though why they give Galloway a platform at events like this.



He was married to a Palestinian woman. Annie Lennox was given column inches for having an Israeli ex husband so what's the difference?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I'd say it was pretty irresponsible parenting to take kids on a protest in the first place



But as for car journeys...


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 4, 2009)

> He was married to a Palestinian woman. Annie Lennox was given column inches for having an Israeli ex husband so what's the difference?



It is not about comparing who Galloway was married to versus Lennox, or Tony Benn or any other speaker for that matter. Their personal lvies with regards to wives/husbands have absolutly fuck all to do with the geo-political situation, or about communicating a message in a balanced fair manner. Any Israeli, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Palestinian or English person with a deep knowledge, first hand experience and unbiased view of the situation and most importantly integrity can do this.
There where probably 100,000 better choices then that cunt.
The fact is Galloway is a fucking disgrace and does not deserve to be on that platform. 

The protests should be picking people with some integrity to speak at them, Galloway just makes the thing look like a piss take. He is a self serving, grubbing, double standards, two faced parasite, who will probably have a negative effect on the publicity of the event.


----------



## _float_ (Jan 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Oh fuck off
> 
> Rather than making me out to be a heartless bastard who's in favour of beating the poor shocked little kiddies, maybe you could engage with the substance of my post and leave the literal meaning of obviously facetious comments to one side?


erm...



> Anyway, if you confront the police, they will hit you, anybody who's shocked by this almost deserves to be knocked upside the head a few times.
> 
> I have no problem with taking on the police, but to act shocked when they respond with violence strikes me as mind blowingly dishonest. If you want to start a ruck, you have to be willing to risk getting hurt.


OK, people who deliberately have a go shouldn't be shocked if they get hit back... 

...but as you know frequently people who haven't done anything at all get batoned/punched/kicked. Anything wrong with them being shocked that they get attacked (seemingly) out of the blue having done nothing more than wave a sign around and shout a bit?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 4, 2009)

_float_ said:


> erm...
> 
> OK, people who deliberately have a go shouldn't be shocked if they get hit back...
> 
> ...but as you know frequently people who haven't done anything at all get batoned/punched/kicked. Anything wrong with them being shocked that they get attacked (seemingly) out of the blue having done nothing more than wave a sign around and shout a bit?


Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy for people who brought their kids along expecting it to be just another fluffy protest, but it irritates me when "radicals" whine about how nasty and violent the cops are when they try to push past a police line so they can run at the Israeli embassy, as some have done on this thread.  What the fuck do they expect?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> He is a self serving, grubbing, double standards, two faced parasite



As are most people involved in politics. 

I'm not backing him up. I was pointing out that it was equally ridiculous to have Annie Lennox speaking there.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 4, 2009)

> I'm not backing him up. I was pointing out that it was equally ridiculous to have Annie Lennox speaking there.



Fair enough. 

I don't think the public though associate her with being the bastard that Galloway is/percieved as being though, so her negative effects on the protest would be minimal.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> I don't think the public though associate her with being the bastard that Galloway is/percieved as being though, so her negative effects on the protest would be minimal.



I don't think the general public know much about Galloway beyond Big Brother and The Sun whining on about him. Him giving the senate a pasting was proper funny though.


----------



## winjer (Jan 4, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> I don't understand though why they give Galloway a platform at events like this. Tony Benn deserves better fellow speakers then that tit.


A positive first step would be for Benn to refuse to speak


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy for people who brought their kids along expecting it to be just another fluffy protest, but it irritates me when "radicals" whine about how nasty and violent the cops are when they try to push past a police line so they can run at the Israeli embassy, as some have done on this thread.  What the fuck do they expect?



Aye.

Secondly, they went to the embassy - what were they looking for? _Hmmmm?_ There is nothing wrong with what they were looking for, as i have said, i support it fully - but as me and IB have said possibly hundreds of times now, the 'outrage' at 'police brutality' is embarassing.


----------



## winjer (Jan 4, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Baton Charges and so on are still part of the repertoire, but the new and so far very successful approach is containment - i.e. mayday 2001 and 2002, fairfood coaches and pretty much every political event since the late 90's.


Nonsense, containment was the primary approach prior to the paramilitary tactics adopted in the eighties, and remains the default for low level disorder. 

Mayday 2001 used containment very ineffectually, 2002 didn't use containment much at all. Fairford was a repeat of tactics used in the miners' strike, coaches were regularly turned back, the difference, key to the court victory, was that the miners were (rightly) seen as more of a threat.


----------



## winjer (Jan 4, 2009)

untethered said:


> The police are empowered to use force in the course of their duty.


No they are not, aside from the exercise of specific, limited powers they have no more recourse to force than any other person.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

winjer said:


> Nonsense, containment was the primary approach prior to the paramilitary tactics adopted in the eighties, and remains the default for low level disorder.
> 
> Mayday 2001 used containment very ineffectually, 2002 didn't use containment much at all.


I put both down cos i couldn't remember which one it was. And no, in 2002 they were very effective, they trapped people in a cordon very quickly and kept them there. There was no repeat of the previous years rioting, and there never has been. 



> Fairford was a repeat of tactics used in the miners' strike, coaches were regularly turned back, the difference, key to the court victory, was that the miners were (rightly) seen as more of a threat.



Ok, turning coaches back might have happened to both, but if 'Fairford was a repeat of tactics used in the miners' strike' i missed the bit where the police charged into a peaceful crowd on horseback, taped £50 notes behind their shields, beat people half to death...

you are telling me there has been no overhaul in public order policing since the 1980's?

okaaaaaay.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 4, 2009)

winjer said:


> No they are not, aside from the exercise of specific, limited powers they have no more recourse to force than any other person.



Hanging around to argue the point with them is a) not a bright idea and b) confuses the whole point that anarchists try and make about the police.


----------



## untethered (Jan 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> No they are not, aside from the exercise of specific, limited powers they have no more recourse to force than any other person.



Well obviously, apart from all the dozens of differences and exceptions, the rights and duties of police officers are _identical _to those of ordinary citizens.


----------



## winjer (Jan 5, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> Hanging around to argue the point with them is a) not a bright idea


Where did I suggest any such thing?


----------



## winjer (Jan 5, 2009)

untethered said:


> Well obviously, apart from all the dozens of differences and exceptions, the rights and duties of police officers are _identical _to those of ordinary citizens.


No, aside from *very limited circumstances* it's entirely down to Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which applies equally to everybody.


----------



## untethered (Jan 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> No, aside from *very limited circumstances* it's entirely down to Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which applies equally to everybody.



The point you seem to be missing by a very large margin is that the duties of a police officer are very different from those of the ordinary citizen.

The police officer has a _duty _to maintain the peace. They have a duty to prevent and detect crime and to apprehend suspects. In many instances of their duty, they are obliged to get involved in situations where force may be necessary.

This is a very different thing from a general citizen's _right _to use force in self defence where necessary.

Obvious example: citizens do not have a duty to control public order situations and would not be entitled to claim a right to use force in so doing.


----------



## lovelondon (Jan 5, 2009)

untethered said:


> The point you seem to be missing by a very large margin is that the duties of a police officer are very different from those of the ordinary citizen.
> 
> The police officer has a _duty _to maintain the peace. They have a duty to prevent and detect crime and to apprehend suspects. In many instances of their duty, they are obliged to get involved in situations where force may be necessary.
> 
> ...



what about the right to citizens arrest. Does that have restrictions on it?
It would be pretty useless if it did


----------



## untethered (Jan 5, 2009)

lovelondon said:


> what about the right to citizens arrest. Does that have restrictions on it?



Everything has restrictions on it, that is, is subject to regulation. Citizens performing arrests need to be very careful that they are entitled to make an arrest (something which a police officer is generally more clued up about), that they only use reasonable force and that they hand over the detainee to the police as soon as possible so that they aren't accused of false imprisonment.



lovelondon said:


> It would be pretty useless if it did



Some people come to that conclusion. Personally, I'd rather maintain the current situation that the police generally apprehend suspects and the public call upon them to do so except where exceptionally necessary otherwise.


----------



## winjer (Jan 5, 2009)

Taxamo Welf said:


> And no, in 2002 they were very effective, they trapped people in a cordon very quickly and kept them there. There was no repeat of the previous years rioting, and there never has been.


Where was this cordon? Or are you still talking about 2001, Oxford Circus?

A quick reminder:

1999 - "the party line" - RTS attempt to fill the circle line in solidarity with tube workers, police take them express to Clapham for the cannabisfest.
2000 - "guerrilla gardening" - RTS dig up parliament square, Turkish Stalinists graf the cenotaph.
2001 - "mayday monopoly" - Swappies and liberals detained at Oxford Circus, much rioting elsewhere.
2002 - "mayfair mayday" - Womble7 trial, decentralised stuff all over, cops attack street party in Soho in the evening, most people go on TUC march.
2003 - "weapons of mass construction" - some decentralised stuff, main groups corralled and marched to Traf Sq to join the TUC, which had been hijacked by STWC.



> Ok, turning coaches back might have happened to both, but if 'Fairford was a repeat of tactics used in the miners' strike' i missed the bit where the police charged into a peaceful crowd on horseback, taped £50 notes behind their shields, beat people half to death...


Er, you said Fairford involved new tactics, I pointed out turning coaches back was not a new idea, I didn't claim it was a repeat of all the tactics.



> you are telling me there has been no overhaul in public order policing since the 1980's?


Yes, very little has changed on the ground, command structure has been revised, tactical advisers now often have _de facto _command.


----------



## winjer (Jan 5, 2009)

untethered said:


> The police officer has a _duty _to maintain the peace.


All citizens are under a duty to maintain the peace, though for a citizen who is not also a constable this is regarded as a "duty of imperfect obligation" - cf. Lord Diplock, _Albert v Lavin [1982] 74 Cr App Rep 150_



> Obvious example: citizens do not have a duty to control public order situations and would not be entitled to claim a right to use force in so doing.


Entirely untrue, it can even be a common law offence not to cf. _R v Brown (1841) 1 C & Mar 314, R v Sherlock (1866) LR 1 CCR 20, R v Waugh [1976] TLR 1/10_.


----------



## winjer (Jan 5, 2009)

lovelondon said:


> what about the right to citizens arrest. Does that have restrictions on it? It would be pretty useless if it did


Yes, it's very restrictive, police have a much wider power of arrest, in fact since the passing of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008, you're arguably better off legally using force in self-defence than trying to make a citizen's arrest.


----------



## violetdingo (Jan 5, 2009)

Distressing film opf Gaza http://sabbah.blip.tv/#1644310 < Please do not look if easily upset. This is very real and horrific film of the events. Sorry if repost (busy innit?!)


----------



## cantsin (Jan 7, 2009)

gonna break my "no posting when a bit pissed "rule, but just heard on news 24 (BBC ) that of the 700 palestinians now killed in gaza over the last fortnight , over 200 were children .

To all the fuckwits wanting to talk about "hamas"/ " Israels need to defend itself / rockets targetted at Israel civilians  " / we need to just march peacefully from A to fucking B again comrades + do you wanna buy a paper  ( MC5 you UTTER SWP TWAT!!!!! ) + any div still retaining  a grain of hope in Obamafarce...

just fuck off basically


----------



## october_lost (Jan 7, 2009)

Good post


----------

